3 ms·

Your premise that Western culture's social norms are absolute and universal is far more dangerous than OP's idea of having each culture define its own practices

by osipov 13y ago

Your premise that Western culture's social norms are absolute and universal is far more dangerous than OP's idea of having each culture define its own practices. The West has a genocidal history of bringing "civilization" to other cultures that resulted in their decimation. I fear that colonial imperialism justified by "white man's burden" is being replaced with "human rights imperialism" where the Western dogma of human rights justifies invasion or manipulation of countries out of favor with the West. Case in point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6f3rHZV5JQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6f3rHZV5JQ discussion of US State Dept. Ambassador to Ukraine on how to install US chosen puppets in Ukraine.

chris_wot 13y ago
Your premise that Western culture's social norms are absolute and universal is far more dangerous than OP's idea of having each culture define its own practices. Yeah, I'm not.
einhverfr 13y ago
I think the fundamental problem is that "human rights" don't really have a solid epistemology behind them, i.e. there is no real theory that allows one to objectively argue whether or not something is a human right. This means, effectively, that they become avenues to convert the world to one way of life. The problem though is that solutions to social problems aren't free and what sorts of solutions the US can afford (and at what long-term cost!) are very different than what could be afforded in a place like Indonesia. When I came to Indonesia it took me a long time to understand how things work here, and how much my preconceptions of what was socially good or bad got in the way. For example, police corruption is a functional part of society and it is politically constrained by prosecution. The police may be corrupt routinely in predictable ways that people accept, value, and work into the social order, but if they step out of line and accept bribes that go against the public interest, it's jail time. Similarly contraception is not widely available to the unmarried. This is a part of the support for a retire-with-the-kids culture. If the unmarried are having sex, they are probably trying for a parental-veto-overriding pregnancy. Instead of universal human rights, I think most rights are transversal, and apply to a subset of all cultures based on understandable and objective criteria. Abortion as a right is relative to careerism and an economy that cannot handle the realities of family (i.e. Western Capitalism). Same-sex marriage is dependent on independent retirement. So forth. As for an epistemological basis I would go back to Cicero's statement that there are functional requirements for people to live together in cities. Those functional requirements o course can be met many different ways, but certain patterns have implications, which pose additional social imperatives. So by the function for civil living together and the functioning of society are how rights are to be known and tested and that's the epistemological basis I would give. I would also add that the CAP Theorem as applied to human communications implies a social imperative to individual and local autonomy.

by osipov 13y ago

chris_wot 13y ago

Your premise that Western culture's social norms are absolute and universal is far more dangerous than OP's idea of having each culture define its own practices. Yeah, I'm not.

einhverfr 13y ago

I think the fundamental problem is that "human rights" don't really have a solid epistemology behind them, i.e. there is no real theory that allows one to objectively argue whether or not something is a human right. This means, effectively, that they become avenues to convert the world to one way of life. The problem though is that solutions to social problems aren't free and what sorts of solutions the US can afford (and at what long-term cost!) are very different than what could be afforded in a place like Indonesia. When I came to Indonesia it took me a long time to understand how things work here, and how much my preconceptions of what was socially good or bad got in the way. For example, police corruption is a functional part of society and it is politically constrained by prosecution. The police may be corrupt routinely in predictable ways that people accept, value, and work into the social order, but if they step out of line and accept bribes that go against the public interest, it's jail time. Similarly contraception is not widely available to the unmarried. This is a part of the support for a retire-with-the-kids culture. If the unmarried are having sex, they are probably trying for a parental-veto-overriding pregnancy. Instead of universal human rights, I think most rights are transversal, and apply to a subset of all cultures based on understandable and objective criteria. Abortion as a right is relative to careerism and an economy that cannot handle the realities of family (i.e. Western Capitalism). Same-sex marriage is dependent on independent retirement. So forth. As for an epistemological basis I would go back to Cicero's statement that there are functional requirements for people to live together in cities. Those functional requirements o course can be met many different ways, but certain patterns have implications, which pose additional social imperatives. So by the function for civil living together and the functioning of society are how rights are to be known and tested and that's the epistemological basis I would give. I would also add that the CAP Theorem as applied to human communications implies a social imperative to individual and local autonomy.