Westerners and moral judgements

[lepustimidus]

Bells:

You bring up an interesting point. Are we to blame for the actions of our Government and the organisations our Government's belong to? I don't think so.. not to a certain extent anyway.

'Not to a certain extent'? So you mean to tell me that individuals such as Fraggle Rocker, who resents the current executive branch of the American Government, who despises his tax money being spent on wars of aggression, who would probably engage in any non-violent means to stop America's imperialism, is partially responsible for the behaviour of the Government? That he bears some responsibility for the actions of others, simply because they are 'Western'?

Like Fraggle Rocker, I consider myself a libertarian. I despise government interference in the the lives of its own citizens, let alone unrelated people on the other side of the world. And yet simply because I was born into a Western culture (and even worse, with a pale complexion), individuals such S.A.M, Tiassa and yourself condemn me.

And then Tiassa wonders why I play the 'perpetual victim'.

For example, if you know your Government is playing a huge part in the deaths of thousands of children a month in another country and you ignore that fact and vote them back into office, what does that say about you?
...
Maybe. Short of a coup, there was not much they could have done. It shows the issue that plagues so called democracies.. The Government does not do as the "people" desire. It didn't then and does not now.

Well, there are a few problems with democracy, aren't there?

Firstly, while you're quite entitled under a democracy to protest your government's actions (as a huge number of Westerner's did in response to the invasion of Iraq), the bureaucracy is also entitled not to give a damn.

Secondly, democracy is a relatively slow to bring about change. For a start, the people must become disillusioned with the current government (eg. realize that it's talking shit about weapons of mass destruction). Then they have to wait out the remainder of the four years to elect someone else.

And thirdly, you act as if Americans have an unlimited number of choices. They could vote for a third party who more accurately mirrors their beliefs, but they know no-one else will. At the end of the day, Americans must choose between two imperialists. McCain wishes to remain in Iraq for 100 years. And even if Obama withdraws his troops from Iraq, an American presence will remain behind.

My point, at least, I cannot speak for Tiassa and Sam, is that we are no longer in a position to point a finger of blame.

You don't speak for me either, Bells, so I'd appreciate you changing your 'we', to 'I'.

But we have lost our way a great deal. The "West" can no longer cast moral judgments

You're categorizing again. Any collective, especially one so disparate as 'The West', has variation within it. Hell, numerous Western countries didn't even participate in the Iraqi War.

Quite simply, I am not responsible for the behaviour and attitudes of others, simply because I happen to belong to the same arbitrary grouping ('Westerners'), and I resent you implying otherwise. I am responsible for my own actions, nobody else's.

We cannot demand from others what we are unable to do ourselves.

Do you mean to tell me that you've blown up civilians? That you've tortured prisoners? That you've beheaded apostates? That you've poured acid on the faces of women believed to be adulterers? That you've engaged in extra judicial killings?

I've done none of the above, and I am well within my right to condemn those who do so. I condemn both the wasteful imperialism of tyrannical governments, and the wanton disregard for human life demonstrated by terrorists.

And I will continue to do so, despite being belittled and condemned by S.A.M and Tiassa for being born in the wrong part of the world.

 

[Michael]

I think that happened back when they killed 500,000 children in Iraq. Which appears to be the only thing the UN is good for.

500,000... children were murdered ... please SAM, I don't even do drugs but OK, pass whatever you are smoking over here





moon split in two.. pffff

 

[lepustimidus]

By the way, I re-iterate:
"1. Who does have the right to make moral judgements if we go by that logic? It's not as if non-Western countries don't have an abysmal human rights record."

India has an abysmal human rights record. Does that prohibit S.A.M from making criticisms in regards to West?

 

[iceaura]

And yet simply because I was born into a Western culture (and even worse, with a pale complexion), individuals such S.A.M, Tiassa and yourself condemn me.

Not condemn you, simply revoke your license to make moral judgments on other cultures or peoples from a Western stance.

You can still make such judgments on individuals, as an individual.

 

[Bells]

Bells:


'Not to a certain extent'? So you mean to tell me that individuals such as Fraggle Rocker, who resents the current executive branch of the American Government, who despises his tax money being spent on wars of aggression, who would probably engage in any non-violent means to stop America's imperialism, is partially responsible for the behaviour of the Government? That he bears some responsibility for the actions of others, simply because they are 'Western'?

Like Fraggle Rocker, I consider myself a libertarian. I despise government interference in the the lives of its own citizens, let alone unrelated people on the other side of the world. And yet simply because I was born into a Western culture (and even worse, with a pale complexion), individuals such S.A.M, Tiassa and yourself condemn me.

And then Tiassa wonders why I play the 'perpetual victim'.

Condemn you? Far from it.

On the contrary, I applaud people who speak out against their Government when said Government partakes in actions that cause such harm to others. But we can't say we are "victims" in the face of the deaths our Government's cause in other countries.

And we are not in any position to criticise other countries of their human rights abuses when we are guilty of it ourselves. We can't bitch and moan about those "Muslim terrorists" who kill innocent victims when our own Governments, Governments we vote into power, kill innocent victims by way of sanctions and bombings. We can comment on it as individuals, but we can't claim, as many have, that the West is better, etc, when it is not. We can't claim that Muslims are backwards because of terrorism that kills innocent civilians, when the West is also guilty of killing innocent civilians and then claiming it is a price worth paying for.. or referring to it as 'collateral damage'.

Well, there are a few problems with democracy, aren't there?

Firstly, while you're quite entitled under a democracy to protest your government's actions (as a huge number of Westerner's did in response to the invasion of Iraq), the bureaucracy is also entitled not to give a damn.

Secondly, democracy is a relatively slow to bring about change. For a start, the people must become disillusioned with the current government (eg. realize that it's talking shit about weapons of mass destruction). Then they have to wait out the remainder of the four years to elect someone else.

And thirdly, you act as if Americans have an unlimited number of choices. They could vote for a third party who more accurately mirrors their beliefs, but they know no-one else will. At the end of the day, Americans must choose between two imperialists. McCain wishes to remain in Iraq for 100 years. And even if Obama withdraws his troops from Iraq, an American presence will remain behind.

I don't disagree with you... can you hear that? Hell just froze over. Americans are basically caught between two evils in choice and must choose what they deem to be the lesser one. Whether they do or not is up to them. I have very little faith in human decency in Government. It has failed terribly in the past and any expectations I may have for improvement will be met with failure in the future. In short, we (collectively) have made our beds and we must lie in it... that goes for all of us in the West and elsewhere.

You don't speak for me either, Bells, so I'd appreciate you changing your 'we', to 'I'.

So noted.

You're categorizing again. Any collective, especially one so disparate as 'The West', has variation within it. Hell, numerous Western countries didn't even participate in the Iraqi War.

Quite simply, I am not responsible for the behaviour and attitudes of others, simply because I happen to belong to the same arbitrary grouping ('Westerners'), and I resent you implying otherwise. I am responsible for my own actions, nobody else's.

Maybe it is time we all started to look at ourselves and our own place within the societies we live in and examine what voice we do have and how to exercise it.

Do you mean to tell me that you've blown up civilians? That you've tortured prisoners? That you've beheaded apostates? That you've poured acid on the faces of women believed to be adulterers? That you've engaged in extra judicial killings?

I've done none of the above, and I am well within my right to condemn those who do so. I condemn both the wasteful imperialism of tyrannical governments, and the wanton disregard for human life demonstrated by terrorists.

And I will continue to do so, despite being belittled and condemned by S.A.M and Tiassa for being born in the wrong part of the world.

How can I put this.. Our Government represents us in the International sphere. So who and what we choose to lead us is meant to be speaking for us. Are we responsible when the Government we put into power starts bombing civilians overseas? What do you think MH?

By the way, I re-iterate:
"1. Who does have the right to make moral judgements if we go by that logic? It's not as if non-Western countries don't have an abysmal human rights record."

India has an abysmal human rights record. Does that prohibit S.A.M from making criticisms in regards to West?

Which makes her just as bad as we are. We are all hypocrites.

 

[greenberg]

1. Who does have the right to make moral judgements if we go by that logic?

It all depends on what actions those moral judgments imply or lead to.
Anyone is free to make moral judgments, but some actions performed on the grounds of those moral judgments might be illegal and punishable in some countries.

So it comes down to whether you can live with your own moral conscience if you don't always act as you see to be in accordance with that moral conscience (when the Law or a large number of other people disagree with you and you deem it is not worth to risk the consequences of this disagreement).

The pertinant question here is: Why should I be held accountable for the behaviour of others, simply because I belong to a rather arbitrary grouping (ie. Westerners)?

First of all, unless you actually yourself played an important part in the behavior of others (such as being their commander, threatening them, or some such), all you are left with in terms of accountability is an accountability that is assigned to you merely formally.
Just like any American who didn't vote at the last presidential elections but who is against GWB, is formally accountable that the US has GWB for president. This accountability is of course minimal, but it's there.

Secondly, how strongly you feel affected by this direct or assigned accountability depends on how strongly you identify yourself as an "American" or "Westerner".
You can't have it all - you can't consider yourself a "proud American" and at the same time demand that you be free from all accountability for the acts performed by the US government and the US people.

 

[greenberg]

India has an abysmal human rights record. Does that prohibit S.A.M from making criticisms in regards to West?

Does she consider herself to be a "proud Indian"?

 

[Tiassa]

Whoops

Lepustimidus

Indeed, I have erred. An earlier draft of that sentence read, "Maybe you're sick and tired of being reminded that Westerners have pissed away their right to make certain moral judgments."

For whatever reasons—most likely simple inattention—a very important word got dropped while I was dithering over the structure of the entire paragraph. At one point, everything after the word "pabulum" had been struck. In its reconstructed form, the paragraph is shorter by ... I think two sentences ... than it had been. Nonetheless, I ended up omitting a conditional consideration and left the sentence as a grotesque generalization.

As the discussion is locked, I cannot at this time correct the omission.

Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[S.A.M.]

The United Nations killed nobody in Iraq.

There are at least three senior UN representatives who disagree with you.

UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths have occurred as a result of the sanctions.[16] The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine, was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but it was banned from the country due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon. On May 10, 1996, Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time) appeared on 60 Minutes and was confronted with statistics of half a million children under five having died as a result of the sanctions. She replied "we think the price is worth it".

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[20]

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy"[22]. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Infant_and_child_death_rates

 

[Challenger78]

Tiassa made the following observation here http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993568&postcount=20

that:

"Maybe you're sick and tired of being reminded that Westerners have pissed away their right to make moral judgments."

Does anyone apart from Tiassa agree with this sort of logic?

Yes, frankly, the moral ground we stand on is not solid.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Not condemn you, simply revoke your license to make moral judgments on other cultures or peoples from a Western stance.

Bunk. We've never been perfect, but I'd venture to say that nothing that Bush et al have done hasn't been done before (or much, much worse) by "the West" as well as other cultures. I mean, WTF, we've fire bombed cities, exterminated natives, nuked cities, used chemical weapons, attempted genocide against the Jews in WW2, enslaved blacks, and oppressed various minority groups.

Having done all those evil things in the past, we still had the right to criticize other cultures. UNTIL THE EVIL GEORGE BUSH CAME ALONG! Once Lindy England pointed at the naked prisoner, that was it. That was far worse than the trail of tears, or destroying the mesoamerican cultures, or nuking Japan. Now, and only now, we've lost our moral authority.


Obviously, I'm kidding. We've never been perfect, and we are hardly unique in commiting the occasional atrocity. We are unique in feeling bad about it and trying to clean up our act. All things considered, I'd still put the human rights record, standard of living, technological achievements, etc of the West up against any other culture in human history.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sign up for the ICC and we might take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just saying that you're above international human rights.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Sign up for the ICC and we might take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just saying that you're above international human rights.

I don't believe in one world governent. I think it's extremely dangerous for governments to give over their sovereignty to some international group. The ICC is a big step in the direction of one world government, so I would never support the US joining it.

I think it was Nero who said he wished that humanity had one throat so he could cut it, that's what one world government is. It would put us all at the mercy of one despotic government, perhaps plunging mankind into a dark age we would never recover from.

 

[Tiassa]

Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

The ICC is a big step in the direction of one world government, so I would never support the US joining it.

So ... he with the most and biggest guns gets to decide what is or isn't a crime? Seems rather arbitrary that way, doesn't it?

(They're bad guys because they torture and murder. We're the good guys, so we need to torture and murder. There's a difference, see? It's what makes us the good guys!)

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't believe in one world governent.

Then don't police other countries.

 

[madanthonywayne]

So ... he with the most and biggest guns gets to decide what is or isn't a crime? Seems rather arbitrary that way, doesn't it?

(They're bad guys because they torture and murder. We're the good guys, so we need to torture and murder. There's a difference, see? It's what makes us the good guys!)

I certainly see your point, but I prefer a world in which various nations compete and each serves as a check on the others to one in which there is but one, unitary government with no where to turn should that government go bad (as they all, inevitably do).

 

[lepustimidus]

Bells:

Condemn you? Far from it.

On the contrary, I applaud people who speak out against their Government when said Government partakes in actions that cause such harm to others.

And yet in the same breath, you condemn these same people simply because they belong to an arbitrary grouping known as 'Westerners'. The fact is that only a tiny powerful minority of Westerners and some of their willing pawns (ie. some soldiers) are responsible for the atrocities attributed to all Westerners.

But we can't say we are "victims" in the face of the deaths our Government's cause in other countries.

Um, of course we can. When a Government neglects the needs of its citizens and employs coercion to exhort tax dollars to fund wars of aggression, and the oppressed foreigners respond by targeting innocent Westerners (who they mistakenly believe are guilty by association), then I damn well can 'play the victim'. Not that I do play the victim. Making moral judgements, and condemning unethical behaviour, does not equate to playing the victim.

And we are not in any position to criticise other countries of their human rights abuses when we are guilty of it ourselves.

False. Even if Westerners are all culpable for the crimes of a few (I don't agree), that does not prohibit them from criticising human rights abuses in other countries. While murderers shouldn't take the moral highground, they shouldn't be prohibited from making criticisms either. Otherwise we'd live in a world where the faults and flaws of each country aren't pointed out and rectified, because every country has a shocking human rights record.

We can comment on it as individuals, but we can't claim, as many have, that the West is better,

Saying that the West is 'better' is a vague comment. Better at what, exactly? Which part of the West? I don't have a problem with people who claim that the East, or the West, is 'better', as long as they specify and support.

Maybe it is time we all started to look at ourselves and our own place within the societies we live in and examine what voice we do have and how to exercise it.

Sure. But there is such a thing as multi-tasking. One can clean up the shit on their own doorstep while also operating in the international sphere to make the world as a whole a better place.

How can I put this.. Our Government represents us in the International sphere.

No it doesn't? The Government doesn't necessarily represent my views and opinions on all issues. Representative democracy is all about choosing the lesser of two evils. This especially true for the U.S.A, given their two party system, and is also reflected by the feeling of resignation that tends to be held by Australian citizens in regards to politicians. It sucks, but the limited choice offered in a representative democracy is a slight improvement over the no choice offered under despotism.

At the end of the day, linking the actions of the executive branch of the government with individuals in the society being governed is fallacious, at best.

 

[lepustimidus]

Tiassa:

So ... he with the most and biggest guns gets to decide what is or isn't a crime? Seems rather arbitrary that way, doesn't it?

What's to guarantee that an international organisation wouldn't be U.S dominated anyway?