6 ms·

The crux of the issue is that it that the west is adamant their way of thinking, their lifestyle and changes to social dynamics is the benchmark of morality for

The crux of the issue is that it that the west is adamant their way of thinking, their lifestyle and changes to social dynamics is the benchmark of morality for the rest of the world. If a country or a group of people do not agree with a concept, then they are labelled backwards, barbaric and "problematic". This is a very very narrow way of thinking as morality is not set and owned by the western sphere. Certainly influential but ultimately there is no compulsion in anyone adopting subjective morality. E.g We see dogs as pets. Some east Asian countries in rural areas see it as food. Who is right and who is wrong? Would it be fair to call them evil and in need of reformation? Why should they? The life they lead is according to their standards. They are certainly in no need of ideological colonisation. Even the charter for international civil rights is a subjective document of morality which can be changed at will as "morality" changes (for better or for worse). A country not abiding by your social concept of "rights" does not make it immoral nor wrong. You rights and wrongs have been derived from your family, your education and society. But combining these together in no way shape or form gives authority to dictate morality to people in other societies. Why can't they say the same thing about you? (I know people will absolutely detest what I am going to say, but hear my thoughts). The only way objective morality that can be set is by the one who created mankind. (Yes I am talking about theology). This is a rational viewpoint to hold. On a (limited) human level, the manufacturer has full competency and understanding of their products. Rights and wrongs. Do's and don'ts. This is the morality that humans should submit themselves to. Not at the whims and desires of self, individuals and societies. Define problematic. According to who and what authority? And follow up question, why should we submit to that authority? (This is not an attack on you, just a conversation starter)

stefanvdw1 4y ago
What conversation are you trying to start exactly? That there is some god who is the only one who can judge if something is right or wrong? And that whole countries can hide behind this? It’s pretty clear what “problematic” is, no? The mistreatment of whole subgroups based on their gender or sexuality in Quatar is objectively wrong, or as you would like it defined: Problematic.
- trashdigitalnom 4y ago
  You mispelled subjective wrong.
- monlockandkey 4y ago
  Where did you get this notion that Qatar is objectively wrong? That is what I am trying to find. People say X is wrong. Ok cool but why is that the case? Why does yourself or your society have authority to decide that this is wrong? A few decades ago it was wrong in western society. Now it is morally correct. So is the morality and understanding of the world pinned to the Anglo-sphere?
  - stefanvdw1 4y ago
    If you need to be convinced that mistreating people is wrong there is no point arguing. The fact that decades ago something was considered wrong, and since has been accepted, makes it no excuse for it to be considered wrong today. And no, the morality and understanding of the world should not be pinned to the Anglo-sphere, but the west just happens to be the most progressive in terms of human rights at this moment in history. If Quatar wants to take the lead and ask all other countries to follow, by all means.
aaplok 4y ago
The article being discussed here is about a Qatari official judging Western standards immoral, not the other way. This is particularly problematic because he is in charge of organising an event that is likely to attract primarily visitors from the very countries he is criticising. There is a disconnect here. FIFA, as an organisation mostly funded from those countries where accepting homosexuality has become a moral standard, has been under pressure for decades to be more inclusive of homosexuals. In that context they made a mistake to award the world cup to Qatar. The same goes with women: they can't pretend that they care about making stadiums more welcoming of women and organise their main event in a country where organisers take the opposite view.
janee 4y ago
Would you use the same argument for groups that justify racism, violence or even murder? No because they are obviously not justifyable. Yes, I agree at some point each person basically draws their own line in the sand when it comes to wrong or right. But I think most people (not just in the west) have agreed in the last few decades to draw their line to exclude making homosexuality illegal. Are you saying it's justified because of religion and circumstance?
- trashdigitalnom 4y ago
  Most people?
- monlockandkey 4y ago
  Racism, unjustified violence and murder is wrong because under divine law, it is wrong. The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. Knows what is best for us and what can harm us. In Nazi Germany, most people agreed to persecute Jews. Over the previous years, it unfortunately became the societal norm and morally correct for that time and place. Just because a majority of people over time agree on something does not magically make it objective truth and right. Yes I know religion irks people. From a discussion point of view, it offers objective guidance rather than conjuring up morality from thin air based on whims and desires.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. You are espousing divine command theory - something to which many religious believers object - for example, the ultra-conservative Catholic philosopher Edward Feser - https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depend-on-god.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depen...
  - sterlind 4y ago
    ah, but which objective morality should I choose? Talmudic? Sharia? Christian? Karma? Mormon? there's so many standards, I can't make up my mind! should I follow the golden rule? is pork okay? can I have sister wives? what castes can I interact with?
omg_ponies 4y ago
A difficult proposal to defend. Even if we skip the enormous problems of proving the existence of a "[creator of] mankind", which deity did you have in mind?
- tmtvl 4y ago
  Well if it's the creator, I think it must be the Celestial Venerable of the Primordial Beginning?
nullcaution 4y ago
I see this opinion so frequently it is a meme, saying that there is some kind of cultural symmetry, everything is relativly equal from opposing perspectives, and that the west holds a superiority complex... Its a fun thought, but it simply is not true. Due to lots of luck, time, death, war and famine western society has developed to be one of the most comfortable, liberal and happiest in the world. This is something to protected, fosterd and spread. > Define problematic... This question alone is problematic because it lacks context, socially problematisch? Morally problematic?

stefanvdw1 4y ago

What conversation are you trying to start exactly? That there is some god who is the only one who can judge if something is right or wrong? And that whole countries can hide behind this? It’s pretty clear what “problematic” is, no? The mistreatment of whole subgroups based on their gender or sexuality in Quatar is objectively wrong, or as you would like it defined: Problematic.

trashdigitalnom 4y ago
You mispelled subjective wrong.
monlockandkey 4y ago
Where did you get this notion that Qatar is objectively wrong? That is what I am trying to find. People say X is wrong. Ok cool but why is that the case? Why does yourself or your society have authority to decide that this is wrong? A few decades ago it was wrong in western society. Now it is morally correct. So is the morality and understanding of the world pinned to the Anglo-sphere?
- stefanvdw1 4y ago
  If you need to be convinced that mistreating people is wrong there is no point arguing. The fact that decades ago something was considered wrong, and since has been accepted, makes it no excuse for it to be considered wrong today. And no, the morality and understanding of the world should not be pinned to the Anglo-sphere, but the west just happens to be the most progressive in terms of human rights at this moment in history. If Quatar wants to take the lead and ask all other countries to follow, by all means.

aaplok 4y ago

The article being discussed here is about a Qatari official judging Western standards immoral, not the other way. This is particularly problematic because he is in charge of organising an event that is likely to attract primarily visitors from the very countries he is criticising. There is a disconnect here. FIFA, as an organisation mostly funded from those countries where accepting homosexuality has become a moral standard, has been under pressure for decades to be more inclusive of homosexuals. In that context they made a mistake to award the world cup to Qatar. The same goes with women: they can't pretend that they care about making stadiums more welcoming of women and organise their main event in a country where organisers take the opposite view.

janee 4y ago

Would you use the same argument for groups that justify racism, violence or even murder? No because they are obviously not justifyable. Yes, I agree at some point each person basically draws their own line in the sand when it comes to wrong or right. But I think most people (not just in the west) have agreed in the last few decades to draw their line to exclude making homosexuality illegal. Are you saying it's justified because of religion and circumstance?

trashdigitalnom 4y ago
Most people?
monlockandkey 4y ago
Racism, unjustified violence and murder is wrong because under divine law, it is wrong. The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. Knows what is best for us and what can harm us. In Nazi Germany, most people agreed to persecute Jews. Over the previous years, it unfortunately became the societal norm and morally correct for that time and place. Just because a majority of people over time agree on something does not magically make it objective truth and right. Yes I know religion irks people. From a discussion point of view, it offers objective guidance rather than conjuring up morality from thin air based on whims and desires.
- skissane 4y ago
  > The line in the sand is determined by "God", not us humans because theologically it is rational to understand that the best law maker is the creator of humans. You are espousing divine command theory - something to which many religious believers object - for example, the ultra-conservative Catholic philosopher Edward Feser - https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depend-on-god.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depen...
- sterlind 4y ago
  ah, but which objective morality should I choose? Talmudic? Sharia? Christian? Karma? Mormon? there's so many standards, I can't make up my mind! should I follow the golden rule? is pork okay? can I have sister wives? what castes can I interact with?

omg_ponies 4y ago

A difficult proposal to defend. Even if we skip the enormous problems of proving the existence of a "[creator of] mankind", which deity did you have in mind?

tmtvl 4y ago
Well if it's the creator, I think it must be the Celestial Venerable of the Primordial Beginning?

nullcaution 4y ago

I see this opinion so frequently it is a meme, saying that there is some kind of cultural symmetry, everything is relativly equal from opposing perspectives, and that the west holds a superiority complex... Its a fun thought, but it simply is not true. Due to lots of luck, time, death, war and famine western society has developed to be one of the most comfortable, liberal and happiest in the world. This is something to protected, fosterd and spread. > Define problematic... This question alone is problematic because it lacks context, socially problematisch? Morally problematic?