4 ms·

From a moral standpoint I think we have to accept how other societies are run and act accordingly, and our laws should end at our borders.

otterley 5y ago
That suggests that human beings are substantially different outside our borders, and that ethics are not universal.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I would say that's more or less observably true
  - otterley 5y ago
    Go on...
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      I don't think every culture has exactly the same ethical framework. One can easily imagine a few different examples where that's not the case.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        I think the question is more about whether you have the same ethical framework when dealing with other cultures as when dealing with your own, not whether other cultures tend toward different ethical standards themselves.
        legalcorrection 5y ago
        Your consistent ethical framework can be to respect the laws (the de facto laws) of the places you operate in. For a whole country, part of any reasonable ethical code is something like not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, which means not exercising legal jurisdiction over actions that take place in other countries and don't really concern you.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Sounds right to me. In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. We should not assume our WEIRD values are universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
  - otterley 5y ago
    > In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. I'm not so sure about that. We have different cultures, to be sure, and certainly different governments to which we pledge allegiance, each with limited reach. But the modern concept of statehood and universally-recognized, clearly-delineated borders is a relatively new phenomenon, dating only back to the 20th century. Borders and distinctions between territories before then were rather blurry. See, e.g., http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundaries.pdf http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundari....
    - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
      But I don’t think this refutes the notion that ethics and morals are not universal. Sure, rigid borders are relatively new but I don’t think we should get bogged down in terminology. Maybe I should have said “government” instead of nation and “territory” instead of “borders”.

otterley 5y ago

That suggests that human beings are substantially different outside our borders, and that ethics are not universal.

missedthecue 5y ago
I would say that's more or less observably true
- otterley 5y ago
  Go on...
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    I don't think every culture has exactly the same ethical framework. One can easily imagine a few different examples where that's not the case.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      I think the question is more about whether you have the same ethical framework when dealing with other cultures as when dealing with your own, not whether other cultures tend toward different ethical standards themselves.
      - legalcorrection 5y ago
        Your consistent ethical framework can be to respect the laws (the de facto laws) of the places you operate in. For a whole country, part of any reasonable ethical code is something like not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, which means not exercising legal jurisdiction over actions that take place in other countries and don't really concern you.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
Sounds right to me. In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. We should not assume our WEIRD values are universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias
- otterley 5y ago
  > In fact that’s one of the main reasons why we have different nations and borders in the first place. I'm not so sure about that. We have different cultures, to be sure, and certainly different governments to which we pledge allegiance, each with limited reach. But the modern concept of statehood and universally-recognized, clearly-delineated borders is a relatively new phenomenon, dating only back to the 20th century. Borders and distinctions between territories before then were rather blurry. See, e.g., http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundaries.pdf http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/references/robinson_boundari....
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    But I don’t think this refutes the notion that ethics and morals are not universal. Sure, rigid borders are relatively new but I don’t think we should get bogged down in terminology. Maybe I should have said “government” instead of nation and “territory” instead of “borders”.