3 ms·

This tells you who really wears the pants in the relationship. Western nations are screwed because their bedrock is enlightenment, but their adversaries have no

by nis0s 1y ago

This tells you who really wears the pants in the relationship. Western nations are screwed because their bedrock is enlightenment, but their adversaries have no such ideals to be held up to. The rule of law that many such organizations enjoy in the West would be denied to them in places their faculty members defend. It’s important to reflect on what works well while trying to fix what doesn’t; discourse often neglects or downplays the former.

necovek 1y ago
Who are these adversaries you speak of? How have they attacked the US of A? As an example, for a long time, spiritual and scientific enlightement was the calling card of the Warszaw pact countries: they just couldn't figure out how to earn money off it (free university education and intensive scentific curiculums in primary and high schools were common). For China today, they are thoroughly convinced they are doing the same by restricting access to "bad information" (like "Western nations" are now starting to do with eg. porn, and did similar stuff with "fake news" during the pandemic) — the difference being that they did figure out how to earn money while doing that. In the Middle East, people die and kill in the name of their version of "enlightenment". Now, not saying there never was any enlightenment in the Western world, but it was built on slavery, exploitation and being first to many an industrial improvement (like using coal or oil to drive progress, that the whole world now suffers for). Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries", but they are only a risk to our way of life if we do not believe it is the right, enlightened way. Because if it is, we are willing to pay for it. Are we?
- nis0s 1y ago
  > Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries" It’s important to reflect on why you say this because when push comes to shove, the moral relativism rings a hollow tone. The preceding parts of your post are just part of the education instilled in you from having been exposed to enlightenment-influenced frameworks.
  - necovek 1y ago
    Not really, it mostly speaks to the fact that I've been indoctrinated through my upbringing, education and environment that this is the "true" enlightenment. Even for people on the "other" side, they ask the same questions and they see the hipocrisy (it's not hard to see how capital corrupts) and get stuck. This is why morality moves in cycles even in the Western world: morality is a human construct created through reason to best enable civilization and progress. I did not add that statement accidentally to "off myself": I did that to acknowledge that this is hard to overcome, and that none of us has a moral upper hand, really (me included).
    - nis0s 1y ago
      I think people often conflate morality with mores. Morality is timeless (it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on), while social mores can fluctuate with changing political, cultural or philosophical view points. On top of that, sociopolitical self-preserving interests can muddle the discourse on what is moral or not, which is what you’re saying, more or less. The point being that ultimately the truth of an immoral act is unchanged by whatever abstractions we layer upon it. So, we make exceptions to ethics for selfish reasons, not moral ones. What matters then are the outcomes for all the reasons we make exceptions, just as you think there’s some justified reason for moral relativism. It’s okay, people can do what they want, they just have to be honest about the trades they make when they do this. From a geopolitical perspective, moral relativism is a nice diplomatic tool, it just has the troubling effect of producing unnecessary contrarianism in populations that would benefit from understanding the implications of that moral relativism.
      - necovek 1y ago
        > it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on Even if we restrict ourselves to recorded human history, there are plenty of examples where killing in particular and imposing one's will by force more generally was glorified. This is really a very modern development (last hundred years?). Just look at how women have been treated 50 years ago as the "weaker sex" (and to an extent, still are today). But going back to morality of the Western world, how does that compute in terms of recent excursions in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... All exceptions needed in the last 20 years? My point is that I subscribe to the notion that "morality" has been developed as a human, reasoned construct to help with self-preservation when cohabiting in large social groups (aka civilization) — I am outright disagreeing with you. Compare with the "morality" of humans brought up outside society (kids lost in woods and similar). Too many counter-examples throughout history to consider it innate, IMO.

by nis0s 1y ago

necovek 1y ago

Who are these adversaries you speak of? How have they attacked the US of A? As an example, for a long time, spiritual and scientific enlightement was the calling card of the Warszaw pact countries: they just couldn't figure out how to earn money off it (free university education and intensive scentific curiculums in primary and high schools were common). For China today, they are thoroughly convinced they are doing the same by restricting access to "bad information" (like "Western nations" are now starting to do with eg. porn, and did similar stuff with "fake news" during the pandemic) — the difference being that they did figure out how to earn money while doing that. In the Middle East, people die and kill in the name of their version of "enlightenment". Now, not saying there never was any enlightenment in the Western world, but it was built on slavery, exploitation and being first to many an industrial improvement (like using coal or oil to drive progress, that the whole world now suffers for). Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries", but they are only a risk to our way of life if we do not believe it is the right, enlightened way. Because if it is, we are willing to pay for it. Are we?

nis0s 1y ago
> Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries" It’s important to reflect on why you say this because when push comes to shove, the moral relativism rings a hollow tone. The preceding parts of your post are just part of the education instilled in you from having been exposed to enlightenment-influenced frameworks.
- necovek 1y ago
  Not really, it mostly speaks to the fact that I've been indoctrinated through my upbringing, education and environment that this is the "true" enlightenment. Even for people on the "other" side, they ask the same questions and they see the hipocrisy (it's not hard to see how capital corrupts) and get stuck. This is why morality moves in cycles even in the Western world: morality is a human construct created through reason to best enable civilization and progress. I did not add that statement accidentally to "off myself": I did that to acknowledge that this is hard to overcome, and that none of us has a moral upper hand, really (me included).
  - nis0s 1y ago
    I think people often conflate morality with mores. Morality is timeless (it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on), while social mores can fluctuate with changing political, cultural or philosophical view points. On top of that, sociopolitical self-preserving interests can muddle the discourse on what is moral or not, which is what you’re saying, more or less. The point being that ultimately the truth of an immoral act is unchanged by whatever abstractions we layer upon it. So, we make exceptions to ethics for selfish reasons, not moral ones. What matters then are the outcomes for all the reasons we make exceptions, just as you think there’s some justified reason for moral relativism. It’s okay, people can do what they want, they just have to be honest about the trades they make when they do this. From a geopolitical perspective, moral relativism is a nice diplomatic tool, it just has the troubling effect of producing unnecessary contrarianism in populations that would benefit from understanding the implications of that moral relativism.
    - necovek 1y ago
      > it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on Even if we restrict ourselves to recorded human history, there are plenty of examples where killing in particular and imposing one's will by force more generally was glorified. This is really a very modern development (last hundred years?). Just look at how women have been treated 50 years ago as the "weaker sex" (and to an extent, still are today). But going back to morality of the Western world, how does that compute in terms of recent excursions in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... All exceptions needed in the last 20 years? My point is that I subscribe to the notion that "morality" has been developed as a human, reasoned construct to help with self-preservation when cohabiting in large social groups (aka civilization) — I am outright disagreeing with you. Compare with the "morality" of humans brought up outside society (kids lost in woods and similar). Too many counter-examples throughout history to consider it innate, IMO.