|
About intervention / non-intervention (has been mentioned in several posts):
You forget that we are intervening in a lot of "Southern" countries every day! We live in globalized world! Cheap apple products (iPhone etc.) - has that sth. to do with the high suicide rate and horrible working condition in Asian factories, where they produce parts of the iPhone? Cheap exotic fruits / agriculture products - anyhting to do with land robbery in African countries, where local farmers lose their basic living foundation?
We are already involved, a lot of times in a "bad" way, and there is no turning back unless you want to go to a pre-globalized world (which - I think - is neither possible nor desirable, as - with all its faults and problems - the chances of globalization are greater - see Arabic Spring etc.)
So it is cynical, to say - "we can do nothing about FGM" - and at the same time to not care, where all those cheap products come from (just one example).
Development aid or supporting change in other countries is definetively a complex and hard issue - how to intervene, when. Every case and country is different - difficult learning process. Lots of mistakes made. But instead of saying "nothing works, we just should do nothing", we should ask, "how can it be done better?". One important answer imo is, not to do it against all the people. Do not know too much about FGM in that regard, but there ARE women in those countries, who want external help, just like f.e. many Syrian rebels ask for international intervention (and because we do not help them, Taliban / Islamic extremist group help them - and we definetively cannot like the results of that).
Not to intervene at all - cynical and shortsighted in my opinion.
How and when to intervene - complex, interesting and highly debatable question.
|
On July 28 2013 16:05 quonzoran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
You forget Germany, Japan, and Korea? Note the difference being that we fought all-out war in those places instead of half-assed war like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What did they teach us? If you're going to go in, flatten the place and rebuild it from scratch (more or less). Being German, I defintevely gotta say sth. about this. It was absolutely the total opposite of what you said! After WWI, that was sort of "flattening" - the treaty of Versailles after WWI put all the "guilt" and burden (so much reperation cost for Germany) on Germany. May historians point that out as one reason, why Hitler could come to power, just because Germany - in a way - got economically flattened (and led rise to the so-called "dagger-stab legend", on which Hitler and others could strive). After WWII, they did a completely different approach. Sure, it was a total war and defeat (but sadly enough necessary). But then, they did real nation building, huge investment (called Marshall Plan) and building up democracy - surely not without pressure, but definetively not in an "imperialist manner", but supporting and strengthening those Germans, who wanted to contribute building up a democracy. When you "need' to fight a war, and how to support positive change in a country are two totally different things, and "flattening everything and redoing from scratch" usually is the worst approach.
Germany wasn't flattened to the ground and occupied except for the Ruhr after WWI.
Germany was flattened to the ground and occupied after WWII.
Before and during most of the war Germans were as fanatical and crazy as just about any people have ever been.
After the war the German people rejected almost everything to do with Nazism and militarism.
There's a connection there.
Economic flattening and actual flattening - big difference. Getting actually flattened tends to make a people turn away from doing whatever got them flattened for a good long while.
What does it matter that you're a German? You don't have some special intrinsic knowledge of Germany before you were born, you know what you've read and watched and listened to. Unless you've read dozens of books on the subject or you're a historian of some sort, I'll say that I know more about it than you do, because I have read dozens of books about it. If you don't like the example of Germany, fine. We did the same thing to Japan. Worked out the same way.
The point is that if you are going to invade a country with the intention of changing it a whole lot, go the overwhelming force route or don't go at all.
|
On July 28 2013 16:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 16:05 quonzoran wrote:On July 28 2013 13:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
You forget Germany, Japan, and Korea? Note the difference being that we fought all-out war in those places instead of half-assed war like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What did they teach us? If you're going to go in, flatten the place and rebuild it from scratch (more or less). Being German, I defintevely gotta say sth. about this. It was absolutely the total opposite of what you said! After WWI, that was sort of "flattening" - the treaty of Versailles after WWI put all the "guilt" and burden (so much reperation cost for Germany) on Germany. May historians point that out as one reason, why Hitler could come to power, just because Germany - in a way - got economically flattened (and led rise to the so-called "dagger-stab legend", on which Hitler and others could strive). After WWII, they did a completely different approach. Sure, it was a total war and defeat (but sadly enough necessary). But then, they did real nation building, huge investment (called Marshall Plan) and building up democracy - surely not without pressure, but definetively not in an "imperialist manner", but supporting and strengthening those Germans, who wanted to contribute building up a democracy. When you "need' to fight a war, and how to support positive change in a country are two totally different things, and "flattening everything and redoing from scratch" usually is the worst approach. Germany wasn't flattened to the ground and occupied except for the Ruhr after WWI. Germany was flattened to the ground and occupied after WWII. Before and during most of the war Germans were as fanatical and crazy as just about any people have ever been. After the war the German people rejected almost everything to do with Nazism and militarism. There's a connection there. Economic flattening and actual flattening - big difference. Getting actually flattened tends to make a people turn away from doing whatever got them flattened for a good long while. What does it matter that you're a German? You don't have some special intrinsic knowledge of Germany before you were born, you know what you've read and watched and listened to. Unless you've read dozens of books on the subject or you're a historian of some sort, I'll say that I know more about it than you do, because I have read dozens of books about it. If you don't like the example of Germany, fine. We did the same thing to Japan. Worked out the same way. The point is that if you are going to invade a country with the intention of changing it a whole lot, go the overwhelming force route or don't go at all.
Him being German means he likely knows more about his own history. Then again, maybe he knows more about American history than you do. Who knows.
Anyways, during WW1 Germany had to shoulder the vast majority of a war it did not cause and had made no considerable gains as they had in WW2. They did not feel the effects too bad after the war, as the entire world was doing just dandy during the 20's. However, when the Great Depression hit America, that affected many other countries in the world, Germany was hit particularly hard.
As they had to pay for the war, they had a stronger sense of anger and desire for revenge. (Ooop, found information regarding this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-was-biggest-debt-transgressor-of-20th-century-a-769703.html )
Anyways, as the article states, after WW1, Germany had to accept all the blame and were painted as the bad guys. After WW2, America initiated the Marshall Plan and essentially rebuilt Germany. There was a world of difference in the results. They were still painted as the bad guys, even worse than last time, but they at least received help rather than the other way around.
And as an American, both you and I, be very careful about the narrative we are taught. We learn history a certain way that may not hit on points that could humanize/justify nazification in anyway. I think most Americans would rather think that Germany turned to national socialism on their own volition rather than due to any influence from other nations.
|
First of all, thank you DeepElemBlues for your response! Like to discuss with you in order to deepen my understanding and learn from all of this!
I will pick-up some quotes from you in a non-chronological order to make some points, that are important to me to develop my argument.
On July 28 2013 16:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What does it matter that you're a German? You don't have some special intrinsic knowledge of Germany before you were born, you know what you've read and watched and listened to. Unless you've read dozens of books on the subject or you're a historian of some sort, I'll say that I know more about it than you do, because I have read dozens of books about it.
Local knowledge: Great, you got a lot of knowledge about the issue, makes me feel, I could learn sth. new and that's super! Still - knowing a lot about sth. doesn't mean, that automatically opinions of someone, who knows less, are less valid. Interpretation matters too - as pointed out before, with good reason I can be against FGM, even though I do not know every detail (otherwise, we would have a democracy only run by experts, which would be horrible I think).
Why I state, I am German, and that gives me some sort of "expertise" is linked to an important point I also tried to make in other posts. Local knowledge is important, being part of a culture. You definetively need local knowledge for a change. Although I did not live at that time, WWII, Hitler, Holocaust is still present, maybe more subtle, but definetively strong. It explains, why Germans often have such a hard time to be somewhat "proud" of their identitiy, because such horrible things were possible. And why German foreign policy often - in contrast of its economic power - takes sort of an extreme "non-interventionist" approach. So I think, I have some legitimacy to talk about it, because of that local knowledge - I know from people around me, how they feel about losing WWII and the time afterwards, and most people see it more as a rescue and are very thankful of how US helped Germany with Marshall Plan and nation-building.
Again - that is not to say, I want to narrow your expertise, I think both is important (local knowledge and external / academic expertise), and when they come together - hey, great foundation of an interesting and fruitful discussion!
Germany wasn't flattened to the ground and occupied except for the Ruhr after WWI.
Germany was flattened to the ground and occupied after WWII.
Before and during most of the war Germans were as fanatical and crazy as just about any people have ever been.
After the war the German people rejected almost everything to do with Nazism and militarism.
There's a connection there.
[...] Getting actually flattened tends to make a people turn away from doing whatever got them flattened for a good long while.
Flattening and rebuilding from scratch in order to change a society:
I admit, there is an important point you make here. I guess, it's true, the "shock" of loosing so bad probably helped to make a new start. But I feel, you say sth. like "shock is always necessary for change" and sort of "it is the best way". (If I misread you, feel free to correct me).
Here I disagree. Shock was one important component in that specific case. The fact, that there was some cultural tradition for democracy (Weimarer Republik etc.) was at least as necessary too. If democracy and "Western ideals" would have been totally alien, then this would not have worked, I think.
Second important point - you connect "full-fledged war" very strongly with "major change in a society". I think, that does not hold true for several reasons.
- I think, nearly everyone agrees, concerning the topic of this threat (FGM), no one is calling for a big military intervention to solve this. Would be neither efficient nor justifiable (probably you would do more worse than good).
- Most of the Wars you mentioned weren't fought for the reason to bring about a positive change in the other country. Japan attacked US, so it was a War in order to defend / stop the agression. Same with Germany - freeing Europe was the main reason, not to free the German people from Hitler. Vietnam was not about helping or freeing the Vietnamese, but a battle in the Cold War between US and China/Russia (containment policy). Afghanistan was a result of September 11th, "War on Terror", and as a secondary reason, it was stated to free Afghanistan people from Taliban (which - imo - was more of an added justification than a real reason. Without Sept. 11th - no war in Afghanistan, it's as simple as that).
- As I understand you, "flattening a country and building up from scratch" is the way to go to make deep change. I disagree here. In Afghanistan and also Iraq, that did not work, mostly because they tried to impose a Western-style democracy without taking into account, that there is nearly no cultural base for that, so that it can succeed. In Germany, there was a sufficient base. I still think, it is a good thing, if Iraq and Afghanistan moved towards democracy. But they need to do it in their way - religion is just so important in those countries, and free speech does not help Iraqis as long as terror, murder and insecurity governs their lifes. Probably for some time, they need some sort of authoritative regime to grant basic security needs, and then that can transform into a more democratic regime. Hard to tell. (Think how long it took Europe to get over monarchies and a political dominance of the Church.)
The points I want to make:
- War usually has other reasons than to change a society / country. In most cases, it is not the way to go. It makes sense, when you want/need to stop a Civil War, where people are killing themselves or a government kills its people (Yugoslavia, Hutu/Tuzi, Lybia, ... Syria could be a case)
- Even then, the important question is, what to do after the War. I agree, external pressure can be helpful or necessary. But as (or maybe more) important is, to include some cultural foundations, that are there, and support the next step (which may be more democracy, but often is guaranteeing security first, as free speech has no value when your own life and that of your family is constantly threatened)
- FGM and many other horrible problems cannot be solved with an "invade and flattening" approach, as it is no civil war. Here you need a development approach - invading and replacing the government is neither effective nor acceptable. To be honest, I think we haven't really figured out, how to best do it, many faults are made. Every case and country is different. But it is the way to go. A mixture of pressure (mostly financially), education, supporting "progressive" groups inside the society, supporting public discussion and information, punishment of the worst practices, developing alternatives that go along with the culture - that all is available and must be balanced.
I think it is just a lot more complex, and no blue-print-approach will work. Still definetely necessary and worth trying.
Looking forward to go on with this interesting discussion.
EDIT: @[Agony]x90: Thanks for your argumentation, I agree. Interesting article - there is a little problem with the link - you need to remove ")" at the end of it ... maybe you wanna fix it ... 
|
Pretty sure the Marshall Plan was intended to prevent Communism than anything else.
|
On July 28 2013 19:15 teapot wrote:
Pretty sure the Marshall Plan was intended to prevent Communism than anything else.
Yep, but it helped a lot of countries in the process.
|
I think you guys are going a little off topic...
Forcing a country to adopt a law and putting a swift blanket ban on all female circumcision in Africa is a really bad idea, outlawing it will just radicalize the people practicing it and move everything underground into the land of witch doctors and shamans instead of a clinic setting.
The logical thing to do would be to send doctors or maybe qualify the doctors that are already there so that at least these things are being done by a trained professional, next step would be to add financial incentive to gently nudge the families into choosing a less severe form of circumcision as well as educating the populace on the pro's and con's of male/female circumcision. Within a generation or two things like women dieing or severe damage from circumcisions will be weeded out, much better than the amount of women will die or be mutilated if this practice gets banned immediately.
|
On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:[quote] Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know. Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't. This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question. Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless?
Sure I agree with both of those statements.
Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave.
You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong".
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Something that actually exists.
Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement.
Blackholes are cool is subjective.
Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics.
You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.)
Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things.
Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective.
|
I can't believe people are talking about military intervention.
Don't they understand that the overwhelming majority of women in these countries support FGM? How exactly would you ban the practice given that it's already illegal in Europe, yet still operates underground?
|
On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the argument. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient. For someone who critiques others' understanding of international relations, you don't seem the grasp the concept of autonomy and self-determination. I don't know why you think I don't understand the concepts simply because I've bypassed them. I don't know why you arbitrarily get to choose that autonomy and self-determination somehow supersedes the idea that a little girl's genital should not be mutilated. Bring self-determination to a micro scale, look at those individuals who have their "self-determination" yanked from them at a young age so that a country can get its own little platform. Get your stuff together and don't pretend that people don't understand something just because they don't value the same insane BS you do. Don't pretend to care about those little girls. You don't raise them, you don't feed them, you don't clothe them. You give a shit? Adopt them or something. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the argument. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient. For someone who critiques others' understanding of international relations, you don't seem the grasp the concept of autonomy and self-determination. I don't know why you think I don't understand the concepts simply because I've bypassed them. I don't know why you arbitrarily get to choose that autonomy and self-determination somehow supersedes the idea that a little girl's genital should not be mutilated. Bring self-determination to a micro scale, look at those individuals who have their "self-determination" yanked from them at a young age so that a country can get its own little platform. Get your stuff together and don't pretend that people don't understand something just because they don't value the same insane BS you do. Don't pretend to care about those little girls. You don't raise them, you don't feed them, you don't clothe them. You give a shit? Adopt them or something. No taxation without representation. Why? Representatives make decisions for you. Do you make any contribution to those people (ala taxation), then you don't get to represent them. /edit Having said this. I do not support Canada giving foreign-aid to any country that practices FGM. That's how I draw the line. We control OUR actions so that we can maintain our values without totally infringing on others' autonomy. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream.
Have to agree with you. Its foremost the task of the africans to solve this problem and to culturally evolve.
You can not force the speed of cultural evolution and doing so will only lead to huge troubles, suffering and a verry fragile culture as manny essential steps will be missed due to forcefully speeding up the process.
Maybe thats why iraq and afghanistan are a disaster, and why egypt will become one as well. (though i do think egypt has way better changes then iraq as there culture is ahead)
And Its not like we have not tried sending teachers there btw, we have been sending christian missionairys all over the world for centurys now, with varrying results.
Germany after ww2 didnt need a cultural revolution, their culture was on par with the cultures of the other western countrys around them (christian democracy) and thats why the marshal plan could work.
you can not compare rebuilding germany with rebuilding iraq or afghainstan at all, where not only the economy needs to be build up (not even rebuild as there was no economy before) but where also a cultural evolution is needed.
|
What if a woman of legal age decides to have her clitoris snipped, cut, or in any way mutilated? What is the criteria to judge that it is a human rights offense?
|
Can we leave out the specifics pls, i find it verry distastefull reading them all the time tbh.
|
On July 28 2013 21:04 Robot Buddha wrote:
What if a woman of legal age decides to have her clitoris snipped, cut, or in any way mutilated? What is the criteria to judge that it is a human rights offense?
Well as people have said repeatedly if an adult chooses to do this of their own choice and it's done in a safe environment there's no reason to object to it. The reality of the topic of this thread is slightly more grim, sadly.
|
On July 28 2013 21:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 21:04 Robot Buddha wrote:
What if a woman of legal age decides to have her clitoris snipped, cut, or in any way mutilated? What is the criteria to judge that it is a human rights offense? Well as people have said repeatedly if an adult chooses to do this of their own choice and it's done in a safe environment there's no reason to object to it. The reality of the topic of this thread is slightly more grim, sadly.
How grim? It looks regular to me, i mean in terms of cultural idiosyncracies. I am not saying it is right, I am just saying it is different from American culture.
|
On July 28 2013 20:57 Rassy wrote:
Germany after ww2 didnt need a cultural revolution, their culture was on par with the cultures of the other western countrys around them (christian democracy) and thats why the marshal plan could work. The Marshal plan was important, but to represent this as the main reason for the de-Nazification process is wrong and bordering on propagandizing.
The money amounted to about .5% of the US GDP and that was divided across all the European nations who accepted it. Not to mention that merely injecting cash only takes you so far (as we recently found out in the UK with Gordon Brown's bailout). The German people get the lion's share of the credit for rebuilding their own country.
On July 28 2013 17:04 [Agony]x90 wrote:
Anyways, as the article states, after WW1, Germany had to accept all the blame and were painted as the bad guys. After WW2, America initiated the Marshall Plan and essentially rebuilt Germany. . Too funny. This shit is unbelievable.
|
On July 28 2013 21:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 21:04 Robot Buddha wrote:
What if a woman of legal age decides to have her clitoris snipped, cut, or in any way mutilated? What is the criteria to judge that it is a human rights offense? Well as people have said repeatedly if an adult chooses to do this of their own choice and it's done in a safe environment there's no reason to object to it. The reality of the topic of this thread is slightly more grim, sadly.
but i guarantee that you will object to it, indirectly.
a moral approach would lead to objections and a pragmatic one would lead you to use that difference to your advantage.
one way or the other, you will have a stance on the matter; a stance that would have consequences for her whether you like it or not.
|
On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use.
Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences.
The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know. Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't. This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question. Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective.
Can't you both stop the discussion? You're discussing from both two very valid points of view. One is arguing from moral realism, the other (as in you Reason) is arguing from error theory, moral relativsm or moral anti-realism. Can't really point out which.
I suggest you stop being a know-it-all who's solely speaking the truth, for all of the theories are still up for debate. I might also add for context that most philosophers hold moral realism as the defining theory.
Also, here's a quote of the same wikipedia page for you:
- In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
- In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
Oh look, morality indeed does have different descriptions. From a normative standpoint DoubleReed may very well use his description of morality, albeit a bit limiting on the whole, it may work on various cases.
|
On July 28 2013 21:32 Robot Buddha wrote:
How grim? It looks regular to me, i mean in terms of cultural idiosyncracies. I am not saying it is right, I am just saying it is different from American culture.
I am speechless. How can that look regular to you? How far can one go in theorizing about cultural idiosyncracies to become so indifferent? Where is your empathy? Those girls suffer badly, it is just so horrible! Yes, it is important to have a brain and use ist, but we have a heart, too.
Do not want to offend you, am just a little shocked how this practise can be called "normal". Am happy if you explain it to me.
|
On July 28 2013 22:08 Shival wrote:
Can't you both stop the discussion? You're discussing from both two very valid points of view. One is arguing from moral realism, the other (as in you Reason) is arguing from Error Theory, Moral relativsm or moral anti-realism. Can't really point out which. It's pretty comical that you don't realize how grotesquely out of place this is.
If we had a thread on Christian parents homeschooling their kids and teaching them creationism, everyone would say without reservation that these are bad parents, and most would agree that they don't have the right to keep their children ignorant.
Nobody would even DREAM of debating meta-ethics. Yet when we have a thread about parents with brown skin, there's no limit to how "nuanced" and how "sophisticated" people are prepared to get. One standard for white people doing something objectionable; brown people doing something objectionable makes us cast doubt on the very concept of right and wrong. This is the most extreme double standard in the history of double standards.
|
On July 28 2013 22:14 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:08 Shival wrote:
Can't you both stop the discussion? You're discussing from both two very valid points of view. One is arguing from moral realism, the other (as in you Reason) is arguing from Error Theory, Moral relativsm or moral anti-realism. Can't really point out which. It's pretty comical that you don't realize how grotesquely out of place this is. If we had a thread on Christian parents homeschooling their kids and teaching them creationism, everyone would say without reservation that these are bad parents, and most would agree that they don't have the right to keep their children ignorant. Nobody would even DREAM of debating meta-ethics. Yet when we have a thread about parents with brown skin, there's no limit to how "nuanced" and how "sophisticated" people are prepared to get. One standard for white people doing something objectionable; brown people doing something objectionable makes us cast doubt on the very concept of right and wrong. This is the most extreme double standard in the history of double standards.
You? I'm calling to stop the discussion. It's quite comical that you don't notice that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
