4 ms·

> The enlightenment was a European ideology. China is influenced still by Taoism That doesn't mean one isn't morally right and one isn't morally wrong. If you

> The enlightenment was a European ideology. China is influenced still by Taoism That doesn't mean one isn't morally right and one isn't morally wrong. If you want a hint for which one is which: one asserts that every living person has basic human rights. The other has frequent videos of people ignoring people who are dying, are currently destroying an indigenous population in concentration camps, and when a novel virus broke out, first shut up scientists trying to get the news out, then underplayed it, and then as it started spreading saw citizens weld shut doors of people suspected of having that virus.

azinman2 5y ago
I'm not sure who/what you're replying to here. I wasn't making a moral judgement at all. I'm just correcting the GP suggesting that the Enlightenment is somehow a universal ideal (the way I read it), when that's far from the case. In fact there have been many ideologies even in Europe since then dealing with criticism of each former philosophical movement. Meanwhile it's undeniable that Taoism is a major cultural cornerstone of China and very much affects how the state and its population are related. Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity. The existence of other frameworks of morality doesn't mean that there isn't one True Morality. It just means that some people act against it.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment? Humans have existed a lot longer than the Enlightenment and battled with ideals of morality throughout the ages. To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous.
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      No living creature enjoys suffering therefore do no action of intent which causes suffering to any other living thing. That's the One True Morality and every person can measure it for themselves because all of us is directly connected to suffering. It's not pompous, it's reasonable, as in it's a deduction that anyone can make for themselves with the reason they have, applied to the vessel they were born with.
    - AllegedAlec 5y ago
      > And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment Probably not, because anything human will only be an approximation. It's probably a whole damn closer than the Chinese morality though. > To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous. Why? In science we accept that there's one true way that any process can be described. Others might be entirely wrong (theory of Humors), or partially wrong, but useful (Newtonian physics). Why is the notion that there's on true moral framework so outlandish?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Great! Which one is it?
AussieWog93 5y ago
>If you want a hint for which one is which: one asserts that every living person has basic human rights. The other has frequent videos of people ignoring people who are dying... A big argument I see by Chinese nationalists online, which I think carries validity, is that Western governments who enshrine human rights and democracy in their constitutions throw their weight behind horrific dictators that support their business interests and suppress democratic movements that don't. Basically, Western governments aren't more moral than China; just more constrained by our institutions. Regarding the lack of good samaritanism in China, this is a recent thing stemming from a 2000s legal case where a man was sued after taking an injured girl to hospital. Most Chinese, especially the older ones, find this aspect of their culture abhorrent and there are active campaigns against it in several cities.

azinman2 5y ago

I'm not sure who/what you're replying to here. I wasn't making a moral judgement at all. I'm just correcting the GP suggesting that the Enlightenment is somehow a universal ideal (the way I read it), when that's far from the case. In fact there have been many ideologies even in Europe since then dealing with criticism of each former philosophical movement. Meanwhile it's undeniable that Taoism is a major cultural cornerstone of China and very much affects how the state and its population are related. Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity.

AllegedAlec 5y ago
> Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity. The existence of other frameworks of morality doesn't mean that there isn't one True Morality. It just means that some people act against it.
- azinman2 5y ago
  And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment? Humans have existed a lot longer than the Enlightenment and battled with ideals of morality throughout the ages. To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    No living creature enjoys suffering therefore do no action of intent which causes suffering to any other living thing. That's the One True Morality and every person can measure it for themselves because all of us is directly connected to suffering. It's not pompous, it's reasonable, as in it's a deduction that anyone can make for themselves with the reason they have, applied to the vessel they were born with.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    > And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment Probably not, because anything human will only be an approximation. It's probably a whole damn closer than the Chinese morality though. > To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous. Why? In science we accept that there's one true way that any process can be described. Others might be entirely wrong (theory of Humors), or partially wrong, but useful (Newtonian physics). Why is the notion that there's on true moral framework so outlandish?
- mcguire 5y ago
  Great! Which one is it?

AussieWog93 5y ago

>If you want a hint for which one is which: one asserts that every living person has basic human rights. The other has frequent videos of people ignoring people who are dying... A big argument I see by Chinese nationalists online, which I think carries validity, is that Western governments who enshrine human rights and democracy in their constitutions throw their weight behind horrific dictators that support their business interests and suppress democratic movements that don't. Basically, Western governments aren't more moral than China; just more constrained by our institutions. Regarding the lack of good samaritanism in China, this is a recent thing stemming from a 2000s legal case where a man was sued after taking an injured girl to hospital. Most Chinese, especially the older ones, find this aspect of their culture abhorrent and there are active campaigns against it in several cities.