Universal Rights

Paradoxum · Jan 24, 2012

Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Eudaimonist · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Racist?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

I care.

That said, I don't advocate neocon "nation building". The culture needs to value human rights for there to be internal support for them. Winning the ideological battle is key.

eudaimonia,

Mark

grasping the after wind · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

What about western countries? Shouldn't we apply Human Rights to them as well? Will anyone care if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments? How about censored, having their property appropriated or their bodily privacy invaded? Giving lip service to human rights is not equal to applying them. Are we only entitled to the human rights that our western governments decide they will allow us or anything they do short of murder and torture is allowable?

athenken · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

What are you defining as "Human Rights?" What one person would consider a right, others may consider a privaledge or luxury.

The Paul · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

I think the notion that human rights are not for other people's cultures is racist.

There is no group of people that wants to be killed, enslaved, etc. Looking at examples where people are killed or enslaved and saying "Well, it's just their culture, they're different from us," really amounts to "those poor, stupid <whoever> simply don't have basic human dignity."

Daniel25 · Jan 24, 2012

i think prejudice has morphed into the secular's version of blasphemy.

Gath · Jan 24, 2012

I agree with Eudaimonist here. If we want those countries to have equal rights, we can't just shoot anyone who violates those rights. Think about it this way-even in America, the 'symbol of liberty' (although whether it is now is questionable) it took hundreds of years for women and blacks to obtain equal rights, and homosexuals still don't have those rights. So, we can't go in and expect them to accept our culture like that, it is a learning process that takes time.

Paradoxum · Jan 24, 2012

Eudaimonist said:
Racist?

Imposing so called Western rights on non-western countries.

I care.

That said, I don't advocate neocon "nation building". The culture needs to value human rights for there to be internal support for them. Winning the ideological battle is key.

I agree that we need to help them care. Also to support them when the stand up for their rights.

grasping the after wind said:
What about western countries? Shouldn't we apply Human Rights to them as well? Will anyone care if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments? How about censored, having their property appropriated or their bodily privacy invaded? Giving lip service to human rights is not equal to applying them. Are we only entitled to the human rights that our western governments decide they will allow us or anything they do short of murder and torture is allowable?

We should stand up for our rights too.

athenken said:
What are you defining as "Human Rights?" What one person would consider a right, others may consider a privaledge or luxury.

Consider the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or European Convention on Human Rights.

Paradoxum · Jan 24, 2012

The Paul said:
I think the notion that human rights are not for other people's cultures is racist.

There is no group of people that wants to be killed, enslaved, etc. Looking at examples where people are killed or enslaved and saying "Well, it's just their culture, they're different from us," really amounts to "those poor, stupid <whoever> simply don't have basic human dignity."

I agree!

Daniel25 said:
i think prejudice has morphed into the secular's version of blasphemy.

What does this mean?

Gath said:
I agree with Eudaimonist here. If we want those countries to have equal rights, we can't just shoot anyone who violates those rights. Think about it this way-even in America, the 'symbol of liberty' (although whether it is now is questionable) it took hundreds of years for women and blacks to obtain equal rights, and homosexuals still don't have those rights. So, we can't go in and expect them to accept our culture like that, it is a learning process that takes time.

True

JustMeSee · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
What does this mean?

It is really not worth asking. Some people like to just pop in and out for attention.

JustMeSee · Jan 24, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Racist? No, desiring basic, logical rights for all humans on the planet is not racist. Forcing foreign nations to change is very problematic, though.

I care that people are oppressed, murdered and tortured, but I am not currently doing anything about it.

The Paul · Jan 25, 2012

Yeah, if America's endeavors over the last decade or so have taught us anything it's that no matter how bad you think another country's doing, you can't just roll in with tanks and guns and demand they sort themselves out. Well, you can, but it doesn't achieve anything.

So while I think people in other countries deserve some basic human rights just as much as anyone else, it seems like it's pretty difficult to help someone else attain those rights.

GrowingSmaller · Jan 25, 2012

I dont think its called racist but cultural imperialism or ethnocentric.

grasping the after wind · Jan 26, 2012

The Paul said:
Yeah, if America's endeavors over the last decade or so have taught us anything it's that no matter how bad you think another country's doing, you can't just roll in with tanks and guns and demand they sort themselves out. Well, you can, but it doesn't achieve anything.

So while I think people in other countries deserve some basic human rights just as much as anyone else, it seems like it's pretty difficult to help someone else attain those rights.

The only disagreement I would have with this is that I believe they already have those rights by virtue of being human but when they are kept from freely exercising those rights or when those rights are disregarded either by government or by other forces within society the only effective way to change that situation is by change from within and not change either imposed from without or change that is dependent upon outside sources.

Paradoxum · Jan 26, 2012

GrowingSmaller said:
I dont think its called racist but cultural imperialism or ethnocentric.

And is that bad in this case?

mdancin4theLord · Jan 27, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Is it racist to apply Human Rights to non-western countries?

Who cares if they are oppressed, murdered and tortured by their governments.

Your stances always have to do with freedoms. The freedoms a person has in order to do what they want to do. (example: you are pro-abortion want it legal because its the woman's body, you want SOME drugs legal etc)

So taking this stance and applying it to other parts of the worldand the way they live, their views and stances..how could you tell them what they are doing is wrong? To imply wrongmeans you think there is a right. What is the right morals to have? What business do you have in that case to tell a society that what they are doing is wrong? If Muslims want sharia law.if the aborigines want to eat humans.because in their thinking it is moralwho would you be to tell them to stop? Did we have the right to stop Hitler? He had a worldviewand that worldview was acted upon.was he wrong?

I see no way based on your worldview to tell anyone in the world from another country what they are doing is wrong. Iran should be able to make nuclear bombs. Who are we to stop them?

I believe however that we are born with a sense of what is moral and what is not. Most people around the world know that murder is wrong? Where did they get this from? Most people would say rape is wrong. Who told them its wrong?

mdancin4theLord · Jan 27, 2012

Paradoxum said:
Imposing so called Western rights on non-western countries.

I agree that we need to help them care. Also to support them when the stand up for their rights.

We should stand up for our rights too.

Consider the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or European Convention on Human Rights.

Why? Why should we risk our own men and women for people who might not care like we do? Why didn't the German people stop Hitler themselves? Why didn't the Muslims if they hated Sadam and most did.stop him?

Many people say we were wrong to go and take Sadam out. I believe differently that those people who live like they did centuries ago..did not have the capabilities to do this. We should stand up for what is right. But what is right morally.can differ from person to person. Should we attack China because they have a system in place where girl babies are aborted on purpose and born girl babies are even dumped in the trash? That to me is immoral.

Point I am trying to make is that..its in the eye of the beholder. If you think the wars we were in were wrong..then what instance would be justified to go into a nation and take them down? Most the World sees Whaling as barbaric and wrong. Should we stop Norway from doing this? Where does it end?

I doubt the World community would agree on what is moral and what is not moral and be in agreement.

Paradoxum · Jan 27, 2012

mdancin4theLord said:
Your stances always have to do with freedoms. The freedoms a person has in order to do what they want to do. (example: you are pro-abortion want it legal because its the woman's body, you want SOME drugs legal etc)

True, but this is actually also based on my understanding of Human Rights which (I think) at their most basic are the rights of Autonomy, Liberty and Welfare. Liberty seems to be the one that comes up the most when talking about banning something.

So taking this stance and applying it to other parts of the worldand the way they live, their views and stances..how could you tell them what they are doing is wrong? To imply wrongmeans you think there is a right. What is the right morals to have? What business do you have in that case to tell a society that what they are doing is wrong? If Muslims want sharia law.if the aborigines want to eat humans.because in their thinking it is moralwho would you be to tell them to stop? Did we have the right to stop Hitler? He had a worldviewand that worldview was acted upon.was he wrong?

My view isn't that people should be able to do anything they want. I also value Autonomy and Welfare, and Liberty has to be compatible with others Liberty. One shouldn't do something that harms others (put very simply). The right to life goes against killing people when it isn't necessary and that comes under Welfare.

I see no way based on your worldview to tell anyone in the world from another country what they are doing is wrong. Iran should be able to make nuclear bombs. Who are we to stop them?

What Iran is doing has a good chance of killing many people. My morality is based on both Human Rights and Utilitarianism at the moment. It's just that freedom alone comes up alot in what I talk about.

I believe however that we are born with a sense of what is moral and what is not. Most people around the world know that murder is wrong? Where did they get this from? Most people would say rape is wrong. Who told them its wrong?

Honestly I would put it down to empathy and reason.

grasping the after wind · Jan 27, 2012

Paradoxum said:
True, but this is actually also based on my understanding of Human Rights which (I think) at their most basic are the rights of Autonomy, Liberty and Welfare. Liberty seems to be the one that comes up the most when talking about banning something.

My view isn't that people should be able to do anything they want. I also value Autonomy and Welfare, and Liberty has to be compatible with others Liberty. One shouldn't do something that harms others (put very simply). The right to life goes against killing people when it isn't necessary and that comes under Welfare.

What Iran is doing has a good chance of killing many people. My morality is based on both Human Rights and Utilitarianism at the moment. It's just that freedom alone comes up alot in what I talk about.

Honestly I would put it down to empathy and reason.

The term welfare is too vague and too tied up with the idea of government assistance. The right to life and the right to be free from wanton acts of harm do not equate in most people's mind as the right to welfare. I also question whether there is a difference between a right to liberty and a right to autonomy. I would consider the right to own property as a basic right as well and, unlike the right of free speech which would be covered by liberty, not an adjunct of the others.

Paradoxum · Jan 27, 2012

grasping the after wind said:
The term welfare is too vague and too tied up with the idea of government assistance. The right to life and the right to be free from wanton acts of harm do not equate in most people's mind as the right to welfare. I also question whether there is a difference between a right to liberty and a right to autonomy. I would consider the right to own property as a basic right as well and, unlike the right of free speech which would be covered by liberty, not an adjunct of the others.

I know the terms can be confusing at first, but I am using the terms of a philosopher. Autonomey: Freedom of thought; Liberty: Freedom of action; Welfare: Conditions needed for Autonomy and Liberty. I would place property under liberty or welfare.

Universal Rights

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

I believe in life before death!

That's grasping after the wind

Barbary pirates? Or are they?

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Muslm Humanist

That's grasping after the wind

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

That's grasping after the wind

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Similar threads