I get the feeling you didn’t really read what I wrote. I said nothing about ‘reasonable suffering’, and I said nothing about modelling our standards on animal behaviour. I said that I believed we should have mores and laws within our society, and punishments for those who break them. Of course I do not personally think rape is a-okay.
I was just pointing out that the very concept of a society is a human construct, and our rights exist only within that construct. There is no such thing as a ‘natural human right’. I fully accept that there are things that happen around the world everyday that I find morally reprehensible, and I would be happy to see change occur to reduce the occurance of those things. But that change must be social change within the society at hand. There is really no point
Bollocks! Some people just need whacking with a fucking big Clue-Stick[SUP]tm[/SUP]. For example, the imams who preach hatred and distrust of others on a daily basis, should have their jaws broken.
How is a society to affect social change upon itself if it kept in chains and is not allowed to be influenced by “foreign cultures”?
Sorry, internet crapped out and I missed my edit window.
I was going to say - there really is no point in sitting back and calling people vile scum because they are violating what you percive as natural human rights. You can freely rail against their moral code, and attempt to enact or encourage change to that code, but trying to claim the whole matter of that moral code is a biological absolute is the wrong approach IMHO.
Semi-intelligent, thoughtful people, know there is no biological absolute that dictates morality, but they also know that morality isn’t arrived at by living in a cultural vacuum. Morality is the consensus of people who haven’t got ulterior motives, and just wish the best for this planet and its inhabitants.
For a second there I thought this is written by an Iraqi referring to one of recent American presidents.
I think every culture’s essence stems from “us vs. them” worldview. The only difference, for good or bad, Western cultures were more enterprising and greedy (elites) and necessarily delusional and bloodthirsty (masses) to entertain the idea of making other cultures to their own image.
One interesting thing is that being of the same or similar culture is more important than the damage given culture does. For example, 50 years or so ago, the creators and executors of the most heinous act in history of mankind (Holocaust) were given full privileges of the culture they were part of while creators and/or executors of the relatively small acts of desperation (recent terrorism acts) were treated according to their own culture.
And for the Chechnya, I’m certain that their own tyrant would be similar to the one installed by Russia but the chances of improvement are always better with their own than having the one chose by another culture. Just a thought…
Well, several people in this thread are arguing that human rights are somehow intrinsic to our existence. In any case, clearly the problem is that there is no consensus on what is best for us, and that is because of the differences in the cultures which determine our morals. We can argue all day long about who has the ‘right’ morals, and I’m sure all of us on this board will agree that atrocities occur all over the world due to certain moral codes, but I doubt that will bring us any closer to a worldwide consensus on morality.
Good point. Women are Earth mothers like Margaret Thatcher.
Women are permitted in every culture to enjoy the pleasures of domestic life. Men are obliged to protect them from danger. Shame reality does not match your fantasies.
Interesting choice of words: “permitted” and “obliged”. Permission is granted by someone or some thing, obligation is to someone or something.
I think “permission” is very accurate. The men permit, because it is they who have controlled. But exactly who obliges them to do anything? Can’t be the women - it doesn’t make much sense that women could be in a position of simultaneously needing permission and demanding action on an obligation.
Frankly, I think you are looking at this very personally. You sound like a man who is ticked off at women in his world because of his own experience, rather than coming from a larger world view. Because we’re talking about different worlds! You think women living in cultures where they can be “honor killed” and beaten for their choice of outfit are “obliging” anyone to do a damn thing?
The ways of the west in the last 50 years don’t even nudge the scale of the treatment of women across all cultures across all of history.
I disagree. Read my post. I think it would be pretty easy to get the majority of the people in the world to agree to the fact that teh core moral code of human beings, enforceable by other human beings, irrespective of national origin, is simplicity itself - no one, including governments or other organized bodies, may:
kill
maim
torture
rape
enslave
anyone outside of those who have already committed the same crime themselves. t You may torture those who have tortured. You can kill killers, maim maimers and rape rapists, and you may enslave those who have enslaved others.
I think it would be easy to get majority agreement on this.
You’re wasting your time with ol’ Paul. I once read a post of his in which he stated American women dress like whores and how the women in the Middle East dress much more respectable.
Just to be clear, if a country and/or ruler violates the basic human rights of the population under his control, that justifies action against that ruler. Right? Or do we just talk about it?
Yes someone who makes their kids into sociopathic rapists is a vile piece of garbage, as is the kid if doesn’t realize that committing devastating harm to a fellow human being is bad. I don’t care where they’re from.
I answered your question, now why don’t you take a crack at mine.
No, there are things that are almost universally reviled, thoroughly enough that they almost scream out as being a consequence of human nature. Self evident, one might say. The point I’m making with my above example is the visceral despisement people have to rape, slavery, torture, and stuff isn’t something they’re taught. Its something that is inborn. Being a social species our ancestors evolved concern for one another because that shared concern benefits us all more then we put into it. Empathy is natural, but some vile evil beliefs train people out of it.
Holy crap, you’ve been living in mysogenia too long.
Where I come from, the civilized world, everybody can work, or stay out home if they have an agreeable partner. Men and women are free to join the armed forces, be cops, or whatever. It’s a great setup. People are also equally free to own property, leave the house, and choose who they marry and if the consent to sex or reproduction.
Sure. I would know I had harmed another person, of course. I can’t answer your hypothetical in moral terms - how I would judge myself while being an entirely different person capable of committing rape.