Conquer Club

when countries like usa, uk, france etc tell other countries how to behave, why is it that they feel they have the moral authority to do this?

e.g. telling africa they will withhold aid from countries whose attitude to gays does not match theirs, saying that all countries should have democracy, criticising communism of countries like north korea, interfering in afghanistan, criticise china, preaching to iran, criticise the labor laws of countries like china, india and in africa

are those countries in the west really so incredible that they know best for everyone else?

do any of you feel like you have the right to tell those in other countries how to behave, because you see differently to them? so china does not hold elections, for example. do you feel it is okay to criticise them for this?

the carpet man wrote:when countries like usa, uk, france etc tell other countries how to behave, why is it that they feel they have the moral authority to do this?

e.g. telling africa they will withhold aid from countries whose attitude to gays does not match theirs, saying that all countries should have democracy, criticising communism of countries like north korea, interfering in afghanistan, criticise china, preaching to iran, criticise the labor laws of countries like china, india and in africa

are those countries in the west really so incredible that they know best for everyone else?

do any of you feel like you have the right to tell those in other countries how to behave, because you see differently to them? so china does not hold elections, for example. do you feel it is okay to criticise them for this?

In a word, yes.

In a few more words, yes there are circumstances in which countries like UK, US, France have the right to tell other countries how they think those countries should behave, and in many cases they have a right, indeed a duty, to act on what they say.
If you think of an example like Stalin's Russia, with its gulags and purges, killing millions of people, then I would say it is not just right for other countries to criticise & take action, but it is their moral responsibility to do so. Or, a more recent example, the Afghan Taliban's denial of basic human rights, eg education and freedom of association, to women - it is right to condemn and take action against such abuses.
What countries with great power, most notably the US but also UK & France do have is a responsibility to act appropriately. Because their power is so much greater than many other countries, they have a moral duty to use that power wisely. Acting appropriately does mean they should be aware of cultural sensitivities and that they must recognise that their own chosen way of life is not necessarily the only right way.
There are many things UK US France & co have to be aware of. For example, exploitation of labour in India, China & Africa is tied in to the West's demand for cheap goods, and the political and economic power the West has to enforce its demands. So Western powers can't just condemn poorer countries' labour laws without accepting their own responsibility, and acting to change themselves. They must be careful about how they act - in Afghanistan the American alliance had a quick military victory, but it's far from clear how much benefit the alliance has brought to the people of Afghanistan and whether that will last after the coalition's withdrawal. And in future centuries or decades we may come to question the current vogue for democracy as the one great legitimiser, the political good that stands above all others. (Considering a similar example one of the strongest arguments 19thC Europeans made for colonialism in Africa, Asia etc was the Christian ministry effort that went with it - they thought they were saving souls. To many 21st C people that argument looks crazy, one of the evils of colonialism not a benefit).
To suggest there is some sort of moral relativism that makes every country's actions as good as another's so you should not interfere outside your borders is to give up on your responsibility as a human being.
On every individual case, such as the ones you mention below, there will be arguments for and against action and what action is right in that particular case. But the principle has to be that countries with power should use that power wisely to improve the lives of human beings throughout the world.

the carpet man wrote:when countries like usa, uk, france etc tell other countries how to behave, why is it that they feel they have the moral authority to do this?

e.g. telling africa they will withhold aid from countries whose attitude to gays does not match theirs, saying that all countries should have democracy, criticising communism of countries like north korea, interfering in afghanistan, criticise china, preaching to iran, criticise the labor laws of countries like china, india and in africa

are those countries in the west really so incredible that they know best for everyone else?

do any of you feel like you have the right to tell those in other countries how to behave, because you see differently to them? so china does not hold elections, for example. do you feel it is okay to criticise them for this?

Yes.

laughingcavalier: but the question is, are they really helping people of the world? or do they just force homogeny on people who do not want it?

the carpet man wrote:when countries like usa, uk, france etc tell other countries how to behave, why is it that they feel they have the moral authority to do this?

e.g. telling africa they will withhold aid from countries whose attitude to gays does not match theirs, saying that all countries should have democracy, criticising communism of countries like north korea, interfering in afghanistan, criticise china, preaching to iran, criticise the labor laws of countries like china, india and in africa

are those countries in the west really so incredible that they know best for everyone else?

do any of you feel like you have the right to tell those in other countries how to behave, because you see differently to them? so china does not hold elections, for example. do you feel it is okay to criticise them for this?

Criticize, yes. Anything else? No.

the carpet man wrote:laughingcavalier: but the question is, are they really helping people of the world? or do they just force homogeny on people who do not want it?

Hasn't any country, once they get a little power, try to do that? Not just the easy examples of the Cold War and World War 2, but go back to continental Europe during the Middle Ages. Heck, even religions have gone to war over who has the moral high ground (see Crusades).

Everybody who has power thinks they have the moral high ground, but most of the time they don't.

safariguy5 wrote:

the carpet man wrote:laughingcavalier: but the question is, are they really helping people of the world? or do they just force homogeny on people who do not want it?

Hasn't any country, once they get a little power, try to do that? Not just the easy examples of the Cold War and World War 2, but go back to continental Europe during the Middle Ages. Heck, even religions especially have gone to war over who has the moral high ground (see Crusades).

Everybody who has power thinks they have the moral high ground, but most of the time they don't.

phicsed.

-TG

I'm not taking any sides here, but I'd say that, before I doneate to a charity, I have the right to decide if the recipient 's moral stance is one I am comfortable with.
I can't tell somebody not to hate on gays, for exmaple. But I would be fine with saying "hey, there's another hungry guy over here, and he's not a homophobe. I'd rather donate to him."

Usually this type of influence is peddled with the best of intentions,
even if the reality of the home front seems hypocritical.

AAFitz wrote:
Yes.

pmchugh wrote:In a word, yes.

are you guys serious?

the carpet man wrote:laughingcavalier: but the question is, are they really helping people of the world? or do they just force homogeny on people who do not want it?

Its nuts to say these governments are forcing homogeny on other people through taking principled action to promote and protect human rights.
UK govt does not deny aid to people who don't have the same attitude to gays as they do, but it should and hopefully does set conditions on aid to those countries where people are routinely jailed, beaten, mutilated or murdered on account of their sexuality.
For Afghanistan, no cultrual traditions or religious belief can justify throwing acid in a woman's face for reasons of "honour".
North Korea is isolated not beacuse it has a Communist government but because that govt has brutally oppressed many millions of people over decades.
You can question democracy if you like, but to do so you have to show there is another equally good source of legitimacy for a government, some other equally good protector of the rights of a country's citizens.
One strand of UK/US/European foriegn policy since the end of WW2 sprung out of a guilt that they did not do enough to stop oppression by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and they are seeking to make sure they do right by other countries through the apparatus of the United Nations etc. As I said before this is wholly commendable. As the citizen of a democratic country, if a government of a country like Uganda condones the homophobic murder of a citizen like David Kato, and my government does not stand against that murder and its incitement, then I am implicated in that murder. It is my government's duty to act, and my duty as a citizen to see that my government does act.

The question that has to be asked of UK/US/France & co is not are they trying to force homogenity on peoples of the world, but when is it that their foriegn policy is not based on principle? When are they acting on naked self-interest and dressing that self-interest up in the language of principle?
Sometimes it's easier to see the answer in retrospect. Going back 50+ years to post-war Iraq, it looks like the UK set up the Iraqi royal family in power so as to have British/US-led "stability" & access to oil. Today, it certainly looks to me as if the pressure on Iran does not spring from a concern for democracy or human rights so much as from jealousy of an emerging regional power with a radically different agenda from the West's. If UK & co are making a mistake there it is not through too much concern for values like freedom, democracy, self-determination & human rights, but because those values have been subdued to the interests of old-fashioned power politics.

And the question about homogenity should not be asked about foriegn policy, it is really a question about global capital. Are McDonalds and Disney, Shakespeare and Dickens even, imposing a way of life upon people around the world and should they be allowed to do so?

Your apparent opposition to UK/US/France & co imposing homogenity on the world at best misses the point, at worst condones gross abuse of people throughout the world.
Is it right to stand up for freedom and human rights? Unequivocally yes.
Are you dressing up self-interest as the common good? Are you conducting cultural and economic imperialism? Those are the questions UK US & France must be held accountable over.

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Yes.

pmchugh wrote:In a word, yes.

are you guys serious?

I believe we are morally superior to them on some issues, yes. Yes doesn't cover every issue, like Afghanistan, occupying foreign countries etc. That is why I said "in a word".

laughingcavalier wrote:Its nuts to say these governments are forcing homogeny on other people through taking principled action to promote and protect human rights.
UK govt does not deny aid to people who don't have the same attitude to gays as they do, but it should and hopefully does set conditions on aid to those countries where people are routinely jailed, beaten, mutilated or murdered on account of their sexuality.
For Afghanistan, no cultrual traditions or religious belief can justify throwing acid in a woman's face for reasons of "honour".
North Korea is isolated not beacuse it has a Communist government but because that govt has brutally oppressed many millions of people over decades.
You can question democracy if you like, but to do so you have to show there is another equally good source of legitimacy for a government, some other equally good protector of the rights of a country's citizens.
One strand of UK/US/European foriegn policy since the end of WW2 sprung out of a guilt that they did not do enough to stop oppression by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and they are seeking to make sure they do right by other countries through the apparatus of the United Nations etc. As I said before this is wholly commendable. As the citizen of a democratic country, if a government of a country like Uganda condones the homophobic murder of a citizen like David Kato, and my government does not stand against that murder and its incitement, then I am implicated in that murder. It is my government's duty to act, and my duty as a citizen to see that my government does act.

what gives us the right to force our efforts to "promote and protect human rights" on other countries? especially when our "promotion" is in the form of monetary aid that could just end up perpetuating the human rights violations?

laughingcavalier wrote:The question that has to be asked of UK/US/France & co is not are they trying to force homogenity on peoples of the world, but when is it that their foriegn policy is not based on principle? When are they acting on naked self-interest and dressing that self-interest up in the language of principle?
Sometimes it's easier to see the answer in retrospect. Going back 50+ years to post-war Iraq, it looks like the UK set up the Iraqi royal family in power so as to have British/US-led "stability" & access to oil. Today, it certainly looks to me as if the pressure on Iran does not spring from a concern for democracy or human rights so much as from jealousy of an emerging regional power with a radically different agenda from the West's. If UK & co are making a mistake there it is not through too much concern for values like freedom, democracy, self-determination & human rights, but because those values have been subdued to the interests of old-fashioned power politics.

And the question about homogenity should not be asked about foriegn policy, it is really a question about global capital. Are McDonalds and Disney, Shakespeare and Dickens even, imposing a way of life upon people around the world and should they be allowed to do so?

Your apparent opposition to UK/US/France & co imposing homogenity on the world at best misses the point, at worst condones gross abuse of people throughout the world.
Is it right to stand up for freedom and human rights? Unequivocally yes.
Are you dressing up self-interest as the common good? Are you conducting cultural and economic imperialism? Those are the questions UK US & France must be held accountable over.

i don't understand your absolute contrast between self-interested actions and principled actions that benefit the common good.

does the "common good" not include our own well-being?

There is a difference between criticism and taking action on the criticism. The United States could criticize the Chinese for human rights violations... and that's fine (ignoring any potential hypocrisy). But if the United States takes action, that's another matter entirely.

I'm still a believer in state sovereignty, which is probably a little short-sighted, but... whatever...

the carpet man wrote:laughingcavalier: but the question is, are they really helping people of the world? or do they just force homogeny on people who do not want it?

Here's a simple reason why intervention by the US is justified: When you cooperate with your own people, you succeed. When there is gigantic strife, outside action helps propel them forward, saving them the time it takes to go through all the motions of progress by bringing them up to the modern society.
My bad for not organizing my thoughts out very well, but let me know if you get the point I was attempting to make.

Case by case basis imo.

this thread has surprised me. seriously.

you'd think that people who oppose unjustified wars and a hawkish foreign policy (i.e. our country taking resources from another country in order to keep them in line) would be against aiding countries that meet our standards (i.e. our country giving resources to another country in order to keep them in line)

we can't be the policemen of the world, but we can be the arbiters of the world? wtf?

you guys need to understand that money IS power. whoever controls the money controls the power.

you view the act of giving as inherently good (which is why you think selfishness is inherently bad) and ignore the consequences of the action. it is a subtle but pervasive form of deontology

yeah, man, you fucking don't. and you really should if someone like you wants to talk about morality without making someone like me laugh out loud.

john9blue wrote:yeah, man, you fucking don't. and you really should if someone like you wants to talk about morality without making someone like me laugh out loud.

Welcome back from your ban J9B.

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:yeah, man, you fucking don't. and you really should if someone like you wants to talk about morality without making someone like me laugh out loud.

Welcome back from your ban J9B.

do you know why i was banned?

do any of you know, other than pimpdave?

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:yeah, man, you fucking don't. and you really should if someone like you wants to talk about morality without making someone like me laugh out loud.

Welcome back from your ban J9B.

do you know why i was banned?

do any of you, other than pimpdave?

Are you trying to take the moral high ground? Do go on...

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:yeah, man, you fucking don't. and you really should if someone like you wants to talk about morality without making someone like me laugh out loud.

Welcome back from your ban J9B.

do you know why i was banned?

do any of you, other than pimpdave?

Are you trying to take the moral high ground? Do go on...

answer the question.