5 ms·

When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. You simply cannot, in any

by dendory 15y ago

When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. You can defend ideals, you cannot defend barbarism. Some of the things these people do (and others in various parts of the world) are uncivilized in any society.

icebraining 15y ago
When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? Don't get me wrong, I'm all of helping (in not very intrusive ways) the westernized Iranians steer their country in their direction, but that's just because I like those ideals and notion of right and wrong, not because they're somehow objectively right.
- mpyne 15y ago
  > Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? That's a large debate on its own (read up on John Stuart Mill for instance) but essentially you're arguing for a philosophy called relativism, the end of which is that there's nothing objectively right... On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    While I'd say I am in fact a moral relativist, I'd also say I'm not exactly arguing for it. As far as I can see, relativism is the agnosticism of morality - in the lack of evidence for an objective moral code, the only reasonable, logical position is relativism. On the other hand, I'm rather ignorant about the subject, so my opinion isn't to be taken very seriously. On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too. Sure, but I can still dislike it, which in practice means the same (essentially nothing, since my influence is zero ;)
dextorious 15y ago
"""When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """ Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot. It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all. Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples: """You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion.""" In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers). Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country? And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time? For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already. You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion". And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber? Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.
- stdgy 15y ago
  While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with: Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights. I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will. I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.
calibraxis 15y ago
The US and UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected secular government, installing the Shah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat) Us Anglo-Americans are in no moral position to judge Iranians (or anyone else really), since our governments are the cause of so many of their misfortunes. (Imagine if China one day did similar to the US; how far would we regress in terms of hard-won civil rights?) And we're still threatening and dominating them.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  Your link goes nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
ajays 15y ago
You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. And yet the US is the strongest ally of the worst offenders in this regard, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Women can't vote or drive in Saudi Arabia; heck, they can't even go out alone, and can't go out with a male who is not a blood relative or husband. And oh, even when they go out in a car, they can't sit in the front.
- johnyzee 15y ago
  Not to mention that America electrocutes people to death, which may be slightly cleaner than a stoning but not exactly humanitarian.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

by dendory 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago

When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? Don't get me wrong, I'm all of helping (in not very intrusive ways) the westernized Iranians steer their country in their direction, but that's just because I like those ideals and notion of right and wrong, not because they're somehow objectively right.

mpyne 15y ago
> Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? That's a large debate on its own (read up on John Stuart Mill for instance) but essentially you're arguing for a philosophy called relativism, the end of which is that there's nothing objectively right... On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too.
- icebraining 15y ago
  While I'd say I am in fact a moral relativist, I'd also say I'm not exactly arguing for it. As far as I can see, relativism is the agnosticism of morality - in the lack of evidence for an objective moral code, the only reasonable, logical position is relativism. On the other hand, I'm rather ignorant about the subject, so my opinion isn't to be taken very seriously. On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too. Sure, but I can still dislike it, which in practice means the same (essentially nothing, since my influence is zero ;)

dextorious 15y ago

"""When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """ Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot. It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --but since it's an ally, it doesn't get played unfavorably much, if at all. Now, what are things that are "by any definition wrong"? Who gives the definition? Let's see your examples: """You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion.""" In the US 50 years ago there was prevalent racism against black people (heck, there were hotels/restaurants etc not accepting them as customers). Was that civilized? No. So, would another country be justified to say, bomb the US and topple the government to pass laws to change that? I say, no, the people of the US would have to do it themselves (as they eventually did). So, why should it be different for any other country? And who says that all countries should get to the same level of "civilization" at the same time? For example, besides abolishing slavery earlier, tons of countries had women voting much earlier than the US did. And tons of countries have abolished the death penalty already. You say "you simply cannot, in any modern society throw (a) stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion". And I say, that in modern societies like the one I live, you simply cannot execute anyone AT ALL, whatever he said or did. It's unacceptable. When is the US going to come around to this one? And how is stoning worse than the (horrible) electric chair or the (disgusting) gas chamber? Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. I don't even care if they are cannibals in country X, let them do what the f... they want. No one should dictate how other societies should live.

stdgy 15y ago
While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with: Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation. Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights. I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will. I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.

calibraxis 15y ago

The US and UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected secular government, installing the Shah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%C3%A9tat) Us Anglo-Americans are in no moral position to judge Iranians (or anyone else really), since our governments are the cause of so many of their misfortunes. (Imagine if China one day did similar to the US; how far would we regress in terms of hard-won civil rights?) And we're still threatening and dominating them.

pooriaazimi 15y ago
Your link goes nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

ajays 15y ago

You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. And yet the US is the strongest ally of the worst offenders in this regard, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Women can't vote or drive in Saudi Arabia; heck, they can't even go out alone, and can't go out with a male who is not a blood relative or husband. And oh, even when they go out in a car, they can't sit in the front.

johnyzee 15y ago
Not to mention that America electrocutes people to death, which may be slightly cleaner than a stoning but not exactly humanitarian.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]