Should we tell other governments how to run their countries?

[jewscout]

so you believe in the White Man's Burden???:sarcastic
that we have to save these pour societies from themselves?

i agree i abhore such behavior but dominance will only create unrest and ultimately the people we dominate will come to resent us and our system and rebel against it making it worse.

Dominance doesn't mean slavery, and it doesn't mean it's some slippery slope into Nazi-style fascism.

dominance in the manner you are speaking of would only work if we acted like a tyranical police state

 

[Runt]

I defintely think we need to be a voice for human rights and democracy in the world. However, bringing democracy and human rights to other nations through force is not only wrong, but it is also hypocritical and counterproductive.

 

[willything]

you just have to ask would you like another country telling you what to do? as for human rights everyone should look around and first see if we are not guilty of some sort of bad behaviour. things like how do we treat the elderly,what about the homeless?. as the old saying goes clean up your own back yard first.

 

[Maxist]

Well, being an American citizen, and having lived in America my entire life, I have never been in a Governmant inwhich other Governments attempt to control it. But I feel that I have been through worse, I am in the country that attempts to control the others. In other words, if I go to just about any other country, and I say that I am American, an imediat Social Taboo is put on me.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Well, being an American citizen, and having lived in America my entire life, I have never been in a Governmant inwhich other Governments attempt to control it. But I feel that I have been through worse, I am in the country that attempts to control the others. In other words, if I go to just about any other country, and I say that I am American, an imediat Social Taboo is put on me.

you poor poor soul What a price to pay to live in such a great country.

 

[ch'ang]

Is that relative to you?

Everything is relative

Moral relativity is counter-productive to the good of humankind.

Maybe so, but I prefer to listen to logic over emotions.

This is injustice, and you know it.

I cannot deny that this is injustice from an American stand point but why is ours better then theirs? Everyone thinks their morality is the best and most the "enlightened" but who is to judge what is better, there is only like and dislike.

I understand that other people (like the Iranian lawmakers in this case) are just stupid and ignorant when it comes to matters like this. It is the responsibility of the wise and enlightened to (a) educate the ignorant, (b) defend/help those who need protection from the ignorant, and (c) destroy the ignorant if they become too big a problem and cannot be reasoned with. This makes a better world. All of them, better worlds.

I suspect you don't realize how amazingly pompous this sounds. All you have said here is that you think the "wise" (in this case you or people who share your values) should educate the simpletons with force if necessary.

destroy the ignorant if they become too big a problem and cannot be reasoned with

I'd like to say that the only reason that they can't be reasoned with is not because they are knuckle dragging Neanderthals, but because they have different values then you and you refused to let that be ok.

 

[Faint]

Everything is relative

Thanks Einstein, but try to see the bigger picture: in order for our species to succeed in the universe, we need guidlines, particularly those that support everyone in living the best life possible. Call this morals or ethics if you want. But in order for this to work, people need to understand that we have to put our collective foot down somewhere (i.e. take the logical "step" in the right direction) and agree that no, morals are not relative. This can also be called "order", and for order to be maintained there needs to be boundaries. The alternative is chaos, which you seem to be advocating. It's a betrayal of our kind.

Maybe so, but I prefer to listen to logic over emotions.

Your version of logic seems illogical. Consider this, logically, we can not be sure of anything in this world other than the facts that some things bring us pleasure, and others bring us pain. Therefore, it should be understood that the only true good for a human is the pursuit of happiness. All morals and ethics must be based around this, otherwise you're just subscribing to some outdated, pseudo-enlightened philosopical nonsense.

I cannot deny that this is injustice from an American stand point but why is ours better then theirs? Everyone thinks their morality is the best and most the "enlightened" but who is to judge what is better, there is only like and dislike.

Who's to judge? Me and other reasonable people. I don't know why you're having such trouble figuring this out--it's actually very simple. You have two girls, for example, and both (being human) want happiness. Girl #1 lives in Iran and is nearly raped and is then killed for it. Girl #2 lives in the US, or Canada, and is nearly raped but instead of killing her, we punish her attacker instead. Would you care to argue how (a) girl #1 is happier, and how (b) Iran's male-biased joke of a legal system is better than our own in this regard?

I suspect you don't realize how amazingly pompous this sounds. All you have said here is that you think the "wise" (in this case you or people who share your values) should educate the simpletons with force if necessary.

I understand fully what I wrote, as well as the implications. It is absolutely necessary to intervene when ignorant "simpletons" become a problem. What do you think we do with criminals? Do we say, "It's okay that you murdered that ch'ang guy--it's all relative"? Noooo...we FORCE them to comply with rules that they don't seem to agree with or heed.:tsk:

I'd like to say that the only reason that they can't be reasoned with is not because they are knuckle dragging Neanderthals, but because they have different values then you and you refused to let that be ok.

That may be, but their values are twisted, and if they can't learn better (or refuse to), AND they're a threat to humankind, then I say good riddance.

if I go to just about any other country, and I say that I am American, an imediat Social Taboo is put on me.

I think this is a myth. I'll be starting a new thread on this topic...

 

[ch'ang]

in order for our species to succeed in the universe, we need guidlines, particularly those that support everyone in living the best life possible.

I disagree, I don't think getting rid of ethics would dystory us, all the rest of life seem to get along fine without them. And no trying to give everyone the best life possible is not benefical to the species, helping the straggelers only weakens the gene pool and would therefore hurt our species as a whole. I would like to add that while I feel no conviction to help the needy, I don't have a problem with people helping them as it might seem in my last sentance, in fact I admire people that do.

and agree that no, morals are not relative.

I would praise you as a god if you could ever prove this. Simply because it would be one of the most astounding intellectual feats ever

The alternative is chaos, which you seem to be advocating.

Whats wrong with chaos? It is far more interesting then order.

Consider this, logically, we can not be sure of anything in this world other than the facts that some things bring us pleasure, and others bring us pain

I have already considered this deeply and agree with you.

Who's to judge? Me and other reasonable people.

Ah I'm glad you cleared this up, now maybe you can judge which reasonable person is "more" reasonable, you or the man who thinks that women are not people. Both of you belive that you are right and reasonable so who is to his reason is better then yours or yours better then his? The best thing to do is to let people live with their own reason and not try to change it to yours.

Thats all for now, I have got to get to bed. I will answer the rest of your points later.

 

[Valjean]

Yes.
We should make our views known.

Actual intervention must be considered and planned case-by-case.