Human Rights v Culture

[nightcrawler13]

What I (and I hope many of you) see as good and right, others see differently. From cockfighting to not allowing women to drive, female circumcision to homophobia, there are cultural practices the world over that people in the west find abhorrent despite normality to those growing up with it. I try to keep an open mind towards most things, and I try to respect the cultures of others, but I find it hard to step back and just accept that treating women, homosexuals or other ethnicities as second class citizens or worse is justifiable simply because it is the long standing culture...

However, I am a westerner, so my views have been moulded into shape within a western education system, and according to people like Huntington what the non-West sees as Western, the Western sees as Universal.

To say that these non-Western nations whose abuses of human rights are ingrained into their society are wrong, is to say that we are right, is this colonialist thinking? Is it ok to accuse other cultures of barbarism and the need to be enlightened?

Well, the answer is clearly yes, but I'd love to hear the opposing argument from anyone who agrees with it or wants to play devil advocate

[MrZigster]

And, in my experience, most of them can't catch or throw a ball very well either.

[nightcrawler13]

I think we (the west) needs to be very careful of what 'we' think is clearly obvious......

[nightcrawler13]

both

'we're' hardly perfect

[kaosmark2]

Fuck moral relativity. If you start excusing people acting like twats because "it's part of their culture" then anything could be excused.

Aztec sacrifice was part of their culture. We rightly find the idea of sacrifice morally abhorrent. Sexism, homophobia, all of that is twisted. We have values based upon the idea that everyone is equal, and deserves basic rights and respect. We don't actually enforce it on ourselves, or uphold our principles, but that doesn't mean the principles are wrong, it just means Western cultures include a lot of hypocritical twats.

Think of anything you find disgusting, any sort of abuse, and if you start using "a society's culture" as justification, as an excuse, there's no reason it couldn't be used for that. I include a lot of Western habits in that - The 'banking bonus culture' is a prime example of twattishness being accepted because that's what people are used to.

Seriously, fuck it.

[kaosmark2]

are you absolutely certain that every decision you make is the right one?

[kaosmark2]

is it (murder/torutre) morally justified because it's in the name of what 'we' think is right?

the whole Kony2012 farce is a good example (of something... not sure what?)... some twats post a video telling us what to do, and millions on millions jump on board because of their deluded beliefs. wtf?

[kaosmark2]

it's not just that the charity might not be doing as much good as it's claiming, there's every chance they are part of another, different, bad thing, dressed up as good

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=VpuB11d0Gog

as humorous as that is, it's also deadly serious

a good example of how a certain level of cynicism isn't necessarily a bad thing

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Nope. But I am certain that we shouldn't excuse rape/human sacrifice/genocide/torture because it's "culturally" or "religiously" valued in another society.

Torture being something that Western governments do. I don't think our culture is superior, but I think human rights are a far better moralistic guide than basing every decision "in cultural context".

Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but the Nazis had decided killing off Jews was acceptable. Other cultures who didn't share that view interfered. Other cultures decided the behaviour exhibited by another was too abhorrent to allow to continue. Moral relativity could permit anything. Anything.

[kaosmark2]

I think it would be wrong to say that the war came about through some moral outrage about the treatment of the Jews. I would say the main reason was self interest. It could be argued that the was gave the perfect cover for the "Final Solution". No one stepped in with Stalins purges or with Mao in China and they dwarfed the holocaust.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I stand corrected, my knowledge of history is pretty poor tbf. It's sort of portrayed nowadays as moral outrage and I was just going off that. Mind you, that's supposedly the reason for Libya and Iraq.... Should have known better.

[eFestivals]

The west (nowadays) has a morality based on the rights of the individual. That's not the only way of looking at morality.

It's just as possible to present a morality that has a greater recognition of the rights of the collective (society as a whole), and who is to definitively say it's wrong?

Using the USA as an example (because of its more extreme implementation of rights of the individual to just about anywhere else), the 'right' of people to pay for their own healthcare results in very poor healthcare for the poor, and overall the average healthcare is worse than is available on average in the UK via our 'socialist' system called the NHS.

And yet human rights says we all have the same right to life and our good health - so 'western morality' & human rights fails itself within the USA when looking at healthcare, and the result is death for those on the wrong side of the line.

Is that really any better than (say) the likes of the Syrian govt shooting its own people to prop-up a dictatorial regime against (what appears to be) the will of the majority?

I'm not sure it is. More than anything else it's the outcome that matters, and for the victims of each of those scenarios the 'dead' which is the outcome is the same 'dead' for people in the USA as it is for people in Syria. The people who end up dead have the same no-chance of avoiding that outcome under both systems.

For quite a while Turkey has wanted to become a member of the EU but the EU has been reluctant to admit it, on the basis of what appears to be little more than them being considered 'less developed' as a nation. And yet in more recent years as the EU has become more about the pursuit of money and less about social justice there's been a growing opinion within Turkey that the EU mindset is less developed than the more collective ideas that exist (on average) within Turkish society. Who is to say that Turkey is wrong and the EU is right, especially when the EU used to hold a view in the past that was closer to Turkey's than it is now?

[Benj]

No one should have the right to use such a horrific font on a web board and to then do it in green too!!

The Nazis were better than you!!

[Kyelo]

The universal rule I think that should be followed by all is that nobody should be persecuted or killed for what they are be that male/female, straight/gay/bi, white/black/asian, disabled or young/old.

A harder one is religion. To me nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs of lack of but religion can make this difficult depending on ones interoperation and it can also be deeply engrained into a countries/cultures society.

[kaosmark2]

The universal rule I think that should be followed by all is that nobody should be persecuted or killed for what they are be that male/female, straight/gay/bi, white/black/asian, disabled or young/old.

A harder one is religion. To me nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs of lack of but religion can make this difficult depending on ones interoperation and it can also be deeply engrained into a countries/cultures society.

[Kyelo]

What the difference between religion and delusion apart from mass acceptance?

I'm not meaning to provoke anyone here, but there's lots of analogies to things that people are mocked or even diagnosed insane for believing.

[kaosmark2]

To me, religion is a parasite on people but being realistic it is not going to go away and I am no Nazi so the best outcome would be to live and let live. However like I said religion makes believers think people 'need saved' or that non believers are 'infidels' etc. Religion no matter what the adherents say tries in one way or another impose its way on people.

[Kyelo]

Sorry, my argument wasn't really that we should persecute religion. It was more saying that we should mock it, or treat people with wacky but less common beliefs with the same respect.

[kaosmark2]

I'm the first to mock theists and their beliefs don't get me wrong but I'd draw the line at physically assaulting them or banning them outright from practising their beliefs.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I don't see anything wrong with banning people from practising certain beliefs. If someone started worshipping Tezcatlipoca and engaging in human sacrifice I'd think that practise should be banned. If people want to sit in a corner of the bedroom and whisper to their invisible friend though... no problem.

[kaosmark2]

Its interesting that if someone says they are talking to God it may be accepted. However if they say they are talking to a giant rabbit they may well be mad.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Exactly.

Although I suspect the giant imaginary rabbit may provide better conversation.

[worm]

Interesting that you should cite Huntingdon, as he was the main supporter and indeed author of The Clash of Civilisations. I'm sure, then, that you are aware that he believed that because there could be no 'cross-cultural' discourse we're all consequently doomed to conflict. He also posited, incorrectly, that human rights were a western invention. That's a rather wild assumption, no? The implication being that anyone outside of the West is barbaric, primitive and somehow untouched by other cultures.

It's quite telling that it is in fact citizens of the former colonies that disagree with this kind of discouraging moral relativism. The majority believe that a discourse between cultures is possible and that it has in fact been evident for eons. They suggest that it is the perspective of the discussion that is the problem. For example, basing the discussion of human rights on what the west has decided is right is an act of Imperialism. Essentially, human rights would have to be decided cross culturally, rather than by the West, if we were to avoid Imperialism/ euro-centrism.

So yeah, fuck moral relativism and fuck euro-centric notions of righteousness.

Edited March 20, 2012 by worm

[worm]

This is one of a number of clips from a lecture made by Edward Said on this topic using Huntingdon's popular model. He also dismisses those that have based their theories on him, such as Fukyama. It's probably prudent to note that he's a colonial citizen and cross-cultural thinker, given his birthplace & heritage in the Middle East and his exposure & integration to the west.

Edited March 20, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

So we're rejecting individualism for something more recognising of the collective?

I bloody hope so. It's about time that Thatcherism started to be rejected.