3 ms·

Your measure of better or worse is subjective. If so called agency of women results in economic gains, but at the same time puts costs on social cohesion, child

Your measure of better or worse is subjective. If so called agency of women results in economic gains, but at the same time puts costs on social cohesion, children growing up a good childhood, and the value of family (or so on), then you could also say it is worse.

refurb 5y ago
Only if one ignores core liberal ideas of human rights. By your logic we couldn’t say slavery was bad if society was better off when it existed. This is false. Slavery is objectively bad.
- erenyeager 5y ago
  I believe the word Presentism comes to mind. The idea of human rights is constantly in flux. It is subjectively understood and applied. For example, is internet access now a human right? It is not clear what interpretation of human rights should prevail. Not to mention that ‘liberal ideas of human rights’ is a very Eurocentric framing which denies important contributions from other civilizations. Even interpretation of historical events relative to the present can be subjected to a flux in understanding. If slavery was codified to protect the rights of slave owners and slaves, while also providing for both parties, then this arrangement could be considered better than the economic servitude many laborers find themselves in today. In fact, most slavery in history was not like the brutality of so called American chattel slavery.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Of course it's constantly in flux, but that doesn't mean the flux is always in a "good" direction. I mean, the belief system of Germany in WW2 went off the rails and a good portion of the population agreed, but I think we can all admit it didn't evolve into a "better" system.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  There is no objective foundation for human rights. I personally prefer to live in a world where we all pretend they exist, but we need some other way to reach people that don’t hold the same arbitrary moral axioms than reasserting them. For a long time, that was to claim that enforcing our table of human rights made you richer, but unfortunately that’s losing currency nowadays.

refurb 5y ago

Only if one ignores core liberal ideas of human rights. By your logic we couldn’t say slavery was bad if society was better off when it existed. This is false. Slavery is objectively bad.

erenyeager 5y ago
I believe the word Presentism comes to mind. The idea of human rights is constantly in flux. It is subjectively understood and applied. For example, is internet access now a human right? It is not clear what interpretation of human rights should prevail. Not to mention that ‘liberal ideas of human rights’ is a very Eurocentric framing which denies important contributions from other civilizations. Even interpretation of historical events relative to the present can be subjected to a flux in understanding. If slavery was codified to protect the rights of slave owners and slaves, while also providing for both parties, then this arrangement could be considered better than the economic servitude many laborers find themselves in today. In fact, most slavery in history was not like the brutality of so called American chattel slavery.
- refurb 5y ago
  Of course it's constantly in flux, but that doesn't mean the flux is always in a "good" direction. I mean, the belief system of Germany in WW2 went off the rails and a good portion of the population agreed, but I think we can all admit it didn't evolve into a "better" system.
Amezarak 5y ago
There is no objective foundation for human rights. I personally prefer to live in a world where we all pretend they exist, but we need some other way to reach people that don’t hold the same arbitrary moral axioms than reasserting them. For a long time, that was to claim that enforcing our table of human rights made you richer, but unfortunately that’s losing currency nowadays.