Are western values beyond criticism?
And why is liberalism the arbiter of truth? — Swanty

Precisely, western values and liberalism are highly criticised and discussed on TPF. It is obvious that you are a new member. Wait, and you will see.

@javi2541997

I have followed TPF as a non member for years, so yours is pretty patronising, and shows lack of comprehension/insight.

People pay lip service to critiqueing western values but the conclusion is always they are superior and the arbiter of other values.

There is no denying this, look at the title,
responses and OP of this thread for god's sake!

The US has military bases all round the world. — Swanty

And now pays more in servicing it's debt than in puts into it's military spending.

That means it's on the beaten path to lose it's position. And it can always retreat back to isolationism and create the huge vortex of a power struggle when it leaves. We have heard this over and over again, how the US is pivoting to Asia.

And do notice it made the attempt to have military bases in Central Asia after 9/11. Not only Afghanistan, but several other -stans had US bases, Tajikistan even having both US and Russian bases. Now there are none. The US has totally withdrawn from Central Asia and the Russia enjoys dominance over there. This just shows that likely the US "empire" has seen it's pinnacle of it's power perhaps and is on the way out. Just how many decades this withdrawal takes is the real question. And the likely outcome is that nothing will replace it.

Western values include war,economic oppression,imperialism and broken families. — Swanty

I think war and imperialism have been quite universal in human society, actually. Not something that the West enjoys a monopoly.

But there is one thing hypocritical in our thinking of "the West". And that is that we have this habit of announcing other non-European cultures to be "Western" if they are successful. Hence many people see Japan as "Western" because Japan has been a successful industrialized country. Yet this change cannot seemingly be seen as a result of Japan losing WW2 and the US democratizing the state as the transformation goes back to the Meiji restauration. Similarly for South Korea it took roughly 30 years from the Korean war to become a democracy and again the development is something that South Koreans did themselves. "Westernization" has usually been something of a response to European colonialism and imperialism, as in the case of the transformation of the Ottoman Empire to modern Turkey with Kemalism (which now has ended with the current leader of Türkiye).

(Kemal Atatürk in Gallipoli in 1915. The modernization of Kemalism was a response to Western power and the defeat of the "Sick man of Europe" in WW1, just like in the case of the arrival of US warships were for Japan in 1853.)


And naturally the huge transformation of China that has happened in our lifetime is the obvious example where we simply cannot talk of modernization as "Westernization". I remember the time when China was referred to being similar in economic size to the Netherlands. Technology and consumerism simply aren't some Western, but something simply universal and we should understand it in such a way.

(How Shanghai has changed in 30 years)

The problem is militant capitalism,led by Europe and it's British colony,the US. — Swanty

Europe and the US don't control either China or India, which have been in this Century the economic drivers of the global economy. Americans mainly consume and even if Trump wants the industry to come back, it won't. The UK is the perfect example of European deindustrialization as the country isn't even producing steel anymore. US economic power reached it's zenith at the end of WW2 when every other global competitor was either destroyed, bankrupt or attempting the ruinous experiment of Marxism-Leninism. From there it's been a steady decline, something irreversible as the decline of the UK after it's Empire collapsed.

@ssu
I feel we are just restating our views on this, and we do agree on some matters.

To pivot a little, I would say you are underestimating the power of European/American banking and it's allies.
America's debt is just a way of fleecing the American labour and business sectors to finance it's bankers and elites.
The banking system includes non western allies,but it's all capitalist hegemony,enforced by violence.
Not a western only thing,but lead by the west,the worlds biggest arms dealers and bankers. Without doubt.

Importing a revolution only works if people want it internally.

Historically, as far as I can tell, it usually was either internally induced or an external government exerted brutality on them to get them in line—the latter being, obviously, immoral.

If I grant your point, then that just means that it is really hard to use sheer force to subjugate a population to fundamentally different values—does that mean we should just leave them be? I don’t think so.

Most of the cases, of which I can think of, the vast majority of the people would actually want the revolution, but they do not have the means (like North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.); and in some cases most of them wouldn’t because that would not be in their own interests (like in India). Sometimes you just have to force people to do the right thing, which is what the entire prison system is based off of—no?

Candidates don't run on aggressive foreign policy.

There’s nothing about a representative republic that prevents this; nor why would it? What do you mean by “aggressive”—that’s a very vague term here.

The American people have just elected an isolationist president who doesn't give a sweet ff about other countries.

It’s not that he doesn’t care: it’s that he cares more about America—as it should be. Why would, e.g., Spain care more about the US than itself?!?

conquest is far more expensive than aid, and many representatives oppose even the barely adequate level of aid that might prevent those bad effects you want to march in to remedy.

This can be true, but isn’t always the case. I think you are denying my OP on the grounds of practicality, when it was meant in principle.

I absolutely do. By prevention - like, not propping up and arming bad leaders; like not bombing civilians or supplying bombs to those who will; like empowering the common people; like supplying medicine and technology. Not by conquest.

Do you think there’s a certain point where the Nation would have to use conquest, as a last resort? It seems to me that it is possible that all these alternative measures you spoke of, which certainly should be deployed first could fail and conquest ends up being the final resort.

I view national conquest—i.e., imperialism—as it relates to inferior societies like violence as it relates to evil perpetrators: violence is a just last resort, just like conquest is a just last resort. Do you agree with that? Otherwise, you are saying, analogously, that violence is not a resort at all.

I'm opining that your subset is a pipedream.

I can see it being impractical most of the time, if that is what you mean.

A nation does not impose its values on other nations. The individuals in government impose their own values on individuals in another nation, whether the rest of the nation approves or not.

It sounds like you don’t believe in personifying the State; and I would just briefly note that in a representative republic you have to—the government represents, to some sufficient extent, the people. You can’t separate any member of the government, or the government in totality, from the people in proper republics.

Human flourishing is not the goal of the state. Its goal is to secure its power and advance its own interests

That’s incredibly immoral. That’s like saying that an individual should only secure their own power and advance their own interests as much as they can—what about caring about other people? What about moral law?

Imposing values on another group of people is wrong for the same reason it would be wrong for them to do it to a western nation: it isn’t up to them. They have not been afforded any right to do so.

This is so obviously wrong, though. You are saying, e.g., that an nation shouldn’t interfere with mass genocide in another nation. It’s nonsense.

:lol:

I'm not a moral realist, and I don't think this is how we should do ethics at all.

Ehhh, then I submit to you that you should be amoral: don’t meddle into matters of right or wrong behavior—because you don’t think there is such a thing. I don’t know why you would even care if North Korea is committing mass genocide because you don’t believe they are doing anything wrong.

:up:

I don't think it frequently works historically. I am not denying that most of the historical examples are catastrophic failures; but the OP is pointing out, in principle, that imperialism is not the issue itself. What you are noting is not that imperialism is wrong, but that it is often impractical to try to conquer another nation for the sake of Imperialism (if done in a morally permissible way). I am not saying we go in and conquer each other for dumb reasons or when it is highly impractical to do so; but we should have the disposition that it is our duty to try to subject our better values on worse nations in every practical way possible.

Why should it be so?

The in-group is more important than the out-group. Each group has to protect its own viability first and foremost.

E.g., if I can only save my mother or a stranger, then I go for my mother; because my family—e.g., the in-group—is more important to me than the out-group.

Sovereignty is one crucial thing for any nation. And

This completely sidestepped what I said.

So are jingoism and ultra-nationalism also part of nationalism,

They are a different form of nationalism.

then why promote a term that has also such much negative aspects and can be misunderstood?

There’s nothing confusing about it: nationalism is just the idea that one should have a sense of pride and commitment to their nation over other nations.

And how did that end up?

I think the US could have wiped out the Taliban, just like Al Quaeda, but they gave up because most Americans don’t believe in Imperialism; and, to some extent, I sympathize with it. Afterall, the US has so many problems that they don’t address because they are too busy meddling in other nation’s affairs—but this is irrelevant to the OP. If your nation has glaring issues that need to be addressed, then address them first before trying to expand one’s values to other nations.

So what society is OK with their daughters being raped?

1. North Korea: they collect the women to make ‘pleasure squads’ and it is considered an honor there (to be a sex slave to the elites).

2. Iran: they legalized a form of temporary marriage so that men can pay parents to sell their daughters into temporary sex slavery. It happens all the time there: it’s a sex slavery version of arranged temporary marriage that is sanctioned by and considered normal in that society.

3. China: they do not prosecute and they actively encourage the sexual abuse of female North Korean defectors. Their societies views them as vulnerable scum that do not align with the goals of the Communist Party, and so they do what they like with them.

Need I go on?

These "ideas" are really deliberate propaganda against non Europeans and especially Muslims.
There is no society at large that has these ideas that @Bob Ross is claiming.

Actually, Europeans usually have pretty good countries: I don’t know why you roped them into it. All my examples have been in the middle east and in Asia. I am sure, though, there’s probably some bad apples in Europe as well.

Most of Islam is still what Christianity looked like 500-1000 years ago; so, yeah, I am not generally that supportive of the religion because it hasn’t been domesticated by secular morals yet (enough). Before you quote me out of context, I recognize that there are peaceful Muslims, some of which I know, and I am not saying we should inhibit their ability to peacefully exercise their religion.

Christianity got domesticated more than Islam so far, but they used to be by-at-large just as bad. E.g., wanting the combination of church and state, persecuting different religious sects, persecuting homosexuals, hell-bent on Crusades, etc.

:up:

Overall, I think yes. In many ways other cultural attitudes surpass more Western ideals.

But do they surpass Western culture in the areas that really matter? I don't think so. A representative republic, with liberties and freedoms, where everyone is able to practice what they want, in a merit-based economy, so long as they don't violate other peoples' rights is by far the best culture to live in. I think some of the better aspects of other cultures that you may be talking about, like eating healthy, is something which definitely needs to be worked on in Western society but isn't a part of the core cultural values.

I don't really disagree with your post here: I think we have to be careful when using violence to impose values on other people...but I am saying it is necessary sometimes and a duty we have.

@Bob Ross

You see bob, it's easy to tell you don't have much insight into Muslim countries or Muslim migrants.

Most Muslim countries have secular type laws, maybe mixed in with a few personal islamic marriage laws or something.
You should know this if your judging middle eastern type countries.
It's really only a few countries like iran &Saudi who have more shariah laws, but still on the ground a lot of Iranians and Saudis don't believe in shariah law. Neither do I. Shariah law is political theology.

You don't realise how many Muslims on the ground believe in peace and economics. Your ideology and disinformation blinds you to this and makes you utter uncivilised bigotry, which is truly ironic!

Ehhh, then I submit to you that you should be amoral: don’t meddle into matters of right or wrong behavior—because you don’t think there is such a thing. I don’t know why you would even care if North Korea is committing mass genocide because you don’t believe they are doing anything wrong. — Bob Ross

I do believe they are doing something wrong according to my own (non-realist/non-universal) moral framework, but I don't necessarily think that should be a or the (only) determining factor in deciding to go to war with another country.

I'm a social constructivist, so yes morality would typically only apply within a certain group, within the group that develloped those morals. But typically there's a dialogue between groups/countries too, and you get trade agreements, treaties, pacts, allies and enemies etc etc.... that would be the geo-political analogue for the social contract, but then between states instead of merely within the group. And so I think justification of wars should be evaluatted within those geo-political conventions, and not solely on the bases of the morals of a particular in-group (like you seem to be doing as a moral realist).

and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). — Bob Ross

One will become president of the US in a few months!

The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations — Bob Ross

What is you are a citizen of one of those inferior nations? Why must we have a vested interest in its flourishing. How does this differ from cultural relativism?

, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism). — Bob Ross

What is the measure of "substantially better"? Which is substantially better, a theocracy or a emocratic republic? If your values are based on some version of the will of God, then theocracy Trumps democracy. Unless, of course, the administration is playing both sides. What we end up with is where the US is clearly headed plutocracy.

Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good ... — Bob Ross

While I share your concern with the human good, there has always been a tension in Liberalism between the human good and what individuals may regard as their own good. Some regard the notion of a 'human good' as antithetical to the rights of the individual.

... if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

For one, because of the consequences. Two, because supremacy, whether it is some version of Western supremacy or some other, has more to do with power and domination than with ideology. Three, because ideology itself poses a grave threat when it is imposed through action. The lines between persuasion and coercion, no matter now noble one's intentions, blur whenever there is an attempt to move from an ideal to an actuality via political action.

There’s nothing about a representative republic that prevents this [electing officials on their aggressive foreign policy]; nor why would it? — Bob Ross

Because it would require them to die and sacrifice.

What do you mean by “aggressive”—that’s a very vague term here.

Nothing vague about aggression. One country attacks another - as you propose they should. The population is usually not asked whether it wants to go to war; it's told (often untruthfully) why it should or must go to war.

It’s not that he doesn’t care: it’s that he cares more about America—as it should be. — Bob Ross

Oh, he doesn't care about the US, either. If he's convinced you otherwise, I've overestimated your acuity.

This can be true, but isn’t always the case. I think you are denying my OP on the grounds of practicality, when it was meant in principle. — Bob Ross

I'm rejecting it on all of the grounds I listed in my first post. If your principles cause innocents to be killed or bereaved, I reject your principles.

Do you think there’s a certain point where the Nation would have to use conquest, as a last resort? — Bob Ross

I'll let you know when I've seen the results of the first five resorts. ATM, no.

I am open-minded: give me some examples of countries which are officially Islamic that have freedom of religion. I can't think of a single one that actually will not persecute you for exercising a different religion or being homosexual; except for countries that have a separation of church and state.

I do believe they are doing something wrong according to my own (non-realist/non-universal) moral framework, but I don't necessarily think that should be a or the (only) determining factor in deciding to go to war with another country.

If there is no ‘objective’ morality, then your ethical theory isn’t really useful. It doesn’t matter if you believe that they are doing something wrong but not in the sense that it is actually wrong.

I'm a social constructivist

Is that like moral cultural relativism?

so yes morality would typically only apply within a certain group

It sounds like, contrary to your previous statements, you are a moral realist. Moral cultural relativism is a form of moral realism—although I don’t think it works.

and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). — Bob Ross

One will become president of the US in a few months!

Trump is not a supporter of sex offenses. He definitely engages in immoral sex with prostitutes, but that’s not a sex offense—unless you are suggesting that they were coerced into doing it, instead of it being their normal job.

Why must we have a vested interest in its flourishing. How does this differ from cultural relativism?

Cultural relativism is a form of moral realism such that moral judgments are evaluated relative to the objective legal or moral law of the society-at-hand; whereas being vested in the national-interests is just the idea that you should be interested in your nation prospering so that you can too.

Which is substantially better,

A meritocracy guided by secular values (e.g., of rights, liberties, etc.).

What we end up with is where the US is clearly headed plutocracy.

Arguably, it is already a plutocracy and an oligarchy.

While I share your concern with the human good, there has always been a tension in Liberalism between the human good and what individuals may regard as their own good. Some regard the notion of a 'human good' as antithetical to the rights of the individual.

I facially agree; because I think we should think about it as having rights just to let everyone pursue their own conception of what is good; but, upon deeper reflection, this is utterly self-undermining. In order to argue for this, we would have to claim that it is actually good to let people pursue <…>, and this implies that we have not extracted all of ethics out of politics.

The human good is what grounds, in my theory, why it is actually good to let people pursue their own good. It is just.

... if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

For one, because of the consequences

:lol:

Two, because supremacy, whether it is some version of Western supremacy or some other, has more to do with power and domination than with ideology

Yes, and you need that. This is exactly the absurdity with hyper-liberalism: it is hyper-tolerant. Are you really going to say that Hitler didn’t have inferior values to Ghandi? Are you really going to say that North Korea has at least on par values as the US? This is utter nonsense. Yes, to some extent, we must admit that we have a duty towards what is good; and that includes stopping really bad societies from doing really bad things.

Three, because ideology itself poses a grave threat when it is imposed through action. The lines between persuasion and coercion, no matter now noble one's intentions, blur whenever there is an attempt to move from an ideal to an actuality via political action.

All I got out of this is that it would be difficult to implement; which I do not deny.

The population is usually not asked whether it wants to go to war; it's told (often untruthfully) why it should or must go to war.

Firstly, people get told to go to war no matter what in a republic—that’s not unique to my position here. If my country goes to war, then I could legitimately get drafted—are you saying that’s bad too?

Secondly, the idea is that, just like a citizen should want equal rights for their fellow citizens (and to sacrifice potentially for it), so should they with helping people out from another country by taking them over or at least having influence there to help out.

Oh, he doesn't care about the US, either. If he's convinced you otherwise, I've overestimated your acuity.

What makes you think that? I get that he is egoistic, but you don’t think he cares at all about the US?

. If your principles cause innocents to be killed or bereaved, I reject your principles.

So war, for you then, is always impermissible. Got it.

The in-group is more important than the out-group. Each group has to protect its own viability first and foremost. — Bob Ross

I don't claim to understand your "moral realism," so maybe you can help me out here.

You have suggested we have duty to liberate the citizens of North Korea. Is that purely because we believe we have the status of moral agents, and a duty to carry out acts we deem moral? Or is it because North Koreans also have the status of being moral agents, and that's why we have a duty to them?

The answer to those questions would clarify for me whether we are supposed to consider North Koreans members of the in-group or the out-group. If they are moral agents toward whom we might have a duty, that sounds like we ought to consider them in-group. But if they are out-group, why would we have any duty to liberate them? ― I'll leave you to decide whether you want to defend the idea that they are out-group relative to "us" ― the West or whatever ― and not moral agents at all.

When you've decided you don't understand the question, I'll happily rephrase it.

war — Bob Ross

P.S.

Forgot to ask, why we should spend blood and treasure liberating members of the out-group. How is that putting in-group needs first?

Firstly, people get told to go to war no matter what in a republic—that’s not unique to my position here. If my country goes to war, then I could legitimately get drafted—are you saying that’s bad too? — Bob Ross

I'm saying people don't vote for it.

Secondly, the idea is that, just like a citizen should want equal rights for their fellow citizens (and to sacrifice potentially for it), so should they with helping people out from another country by taking them over or at least having influence there to help out. — Bob Ross

If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.

What makes you think that? — Bob Ross

Everything he's ever said and done publicly.

So war, for you then, is always impermissible. — Bob Ross

A war of aggression, for me, is always immoral.
I wish you did get it.

Trump is not a supporter of sex offenses — Bob Ross

He is a sex offender, and not because he engages is consensual acts that some might find offensive.

Cultural relativism is a form of moral realism such that moral judgments are evaluated relative to the objective legal or moral law of the society-at-hand; whereas being vested in the national-interests is just the idea that you should be interested in your nation prospering so that you can too. — Bob Ross

You seem to have missed the point. If your nation is one of those:

obviously degenerate, inferior societies ... like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India ...[,/quote]

then being interested in in its prospering it to be interested in degenerate laws and governance. If it is morally defensible because it is your nation of society is cultural relativism.
— Bob Ross

A meritocracy guided by secular values (e.g., of rights, liberties, etc.). — Bob Ross

Again, you seem to have missed the point. A meritocracy guided by secular values may be your preference but others may hold to religious values as superior, that it is religious values that have elevated us above the savagery, cruelty, and viciousness of secularism.

Arguably, it is already a plutocracy and an oligarchy. — Bob Ross

It has been at times but there have been correctives such as ant-trust laws and regulations. With Musk in Trump's pocket we are headed in a direction much more severe then what we have now.

upon deeper reflection, this is utterly self-undermining. — Bob Ross

Exactly my point!

In order to argue for this, we would have to claim that it is actually good to let people pursue — Bob Ross

Do you mean something like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The human good is what grounds, in my theory, why it is actually good to let people pursue their own good. It is just. — Bob Ross

In your theory. You should not let your theory blind you to the very real tensions between the individual and the society. One troubling example: the rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus versus the interest of the state and the country.

... if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

For one, because of the consequences

:lol: — Bob Ross

You do not know that we could take over North Korea without grave consequences. This points to a problem with ideological wish fulfillment.

Two, because supremacy, whether it is some version of Western supremacy or some other, has more to do with power and domination than with ideology

Yes, and you need that. This is exactly the absurdity with hyper-liberalism: it is hyper-tolerant. — Bob Ross

There is a difference between liberalism and "hyper-liberalism". The right to national self-determinism is not hyper-liberalism. The use of power and domination to get a sovereign nation to conform to your ideology is hyper-imperialism.

Are you really going to say that Hitler didn’t have inferior values to Ghandi? — Bob Ross

Interesting example since Gandhi was opposed to the very thing you say is needed - power and domination. I agree that toleration should have its limits, but the problem remains as to what ought to be tolerated? And here we encounter the kinds of differences of opinion and values that is not covered by Hitler vs Gandhi. Should gay marriage. be tolerated? Hitler would say no. I don't know what Gandhi would have said.In any case, there is no clear line between tolerance and intolerance, and that is obscured when you posit extremes.

Three, because ideology itself poses a grave threat when it is imposed through action. The lines between persuasion and coercion, no matter now noble one's intentions, blur whenever there is an attempt to move from an ideal to an actuality via political action.

All I got out of this is that it would be difficult to implement; which I do not deny. — Bob Ross

Do you not get that the lines between persuasion and coercion can blur when it comes to implementing an ideology? Consider communist ideologies and what has been regarded as needed to achieve them. An ideology and what has been done to achieve it must be considered together.

Not in every area that really matters. Clearly, as I stated, the weight is on the western side in many degrees. If you are suggesting that Western culture (whatever that may be) is better in EVERY single way that matters I would want to see how you are calculating this?

A combination of elements for other societies around the world could easily be on par or even better.

One such example would be how well other countries around the world have managed to separate religion from state (China and Japan had to create a concept for Religion to talk about monotheistic traditions in the late 19th century). The west is pretty much detached from ancient traditions having had them wiped out by Romans and the Dark Ages. In Australia the culture has survived in spite of the attempts of erasing it during colonization. These are extremely rich and useful traditions that are going to change the face of education in the immediate future.

I am by no means stating that Western culture is anymore destructive or authoritarian than any other. I think it has a lot going for it. I have readily stated that some cultures are better than others. The difficulty is in showing how we can evaluate this in any objective manner.

I created a thread sometime ago regarding the premise of 'better languages' and it was met with equal hostility. Some people are just not willing to talk about such ideas.

I do think European Culture is probably better than US Culture simply because it is not anywhere near as homogenous as US culture. European culture is a patchwork of various traditions and ideas that have rubbed up against each other, and contended with each other (often violently), for millennia.

The biggest issue is defining what is meant by Western Culture and whether or not the term is at all useful.

Is supremacy, nationalism and imperialism necessarily 'bad'. I think not. Empires do good and bad, and possibly the 'good' may simply be a default outcome, rather than a purposeful aim, by constructing infrastructures (physical or abstract) that lead to overall societal goods.

I do believe they are doing something wrong according to my own (non-realist/non-universal) moral framework, but I don't necessarily think that should be a or the (only) determining factor in deciding to go to war with another country.

If there is no ‘objective’ morality, then your ethical theory isn’t really useful. It doesn’t matter if you believe that they are doing something wrong but not in the sense that it is actually wrong. — Bob Ross

There is no actual objective wrong, only conventional wrongs, yes.... that's just how it is descriptively. Usefull for what, to be able to declare war?

Is that like moral cultural relativism? — Bob Ross

It is relative between cultures sure, but not for individuals. They are beholden to the morality of their group... so it's not anything goes/up the the individuals choice, if that's what you're worried about.

It sounds like, contrary to your previous statements, you are a moral realist. Moral cultural relativism is a form of moral realism—although I don’t think it works. — Bob Ross

It's neither totally realist nor anti-realist I think. Morals are very real in that they exist as conventions for people to follow within certain groups, and are therefor not merely subjective expressions or choices of individuals... but they are also not the things you go looking for and can find as objective facts in the world. We create them over time.