Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

it's also been about 2 or 300 years. culture isn't and has never been constant. i doubt the only thing that's changed is that they stopped pressing witches. i think they lost their cultural identity when it was tortured out of them. did the jews lose their culture when they stopped sacrificing animals? Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

How does it being one's own culture make it make sense? Limits can't be set, only self-imposed. So the natural rights you have to come to accept as part of your culture
should set a line that you should not cross when dealing with other
cultures. I don't think anybody here would disagree with you. All I
have said is that this works both ways. I don't see how the nation is the largest unit of community, there are
plenty of different cultures within one nation - and there are plenty of
cultures that exist way beyond nations. I would have thought the world
was the largest unit of community we have. And I'm sorry to say it, but
other nations have every right to refuse to engage in trade with your
nation should they wish. That might end up forcing a change in your
nation and it would be perfectly legitimate. I'm not suggesting we got to war at the drop of the cultural hat. Life is filled with apparant contradictions. I don't see why it is
hypocritical to desire that other people are afforded the same comforts or
rights as you yourself are. We have national laws. Just like we have international laws. What's the
big mystery? You said that disagreement itself will become criminal, and yet there is no
compelling reason to think that if we spread 'freedom of speech' that would
end up with disagreement becoming illegal. Where do people that want to
engage in slavery turn to when the whole world has the idea it is bad?
Sucks to want a culture nobody else wants, but there you go. Depends what you mean by 'fine'. It is completely normal and natural and
to be expected that other people will fight for their culture to be held by
others...cultures are often viral like that. I'm simply part of that,
hoping that the way I do things will spread to other people, and at the
same time embracing the idea that I might have the way I do things changed
by others. As wiki says:

quote:

---

Natural rights are a theory of universal rights that are seen as
inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or
beliefs.

---

Right, and we secured some of them for ourselves, you guys went to town
with them thanks to one of our guys (cheers TP), and then gave them right
back to us. It was brilliant. When you conceive of universal rights, it would be somewhat hypocritcal if
you didn't desire all governments to universally accept them. Some
governments won't be argued into adopting them and military force or
economic pressure is needed to elicit that change. So other cultures should be forced into acting against their conscience in
matters of who they want to buy their products off? If a nation endorses
child labour, we should still buy their products? We should sell them
material that can aid them maintain the child labour economy? Freedom has to be fought for, there is nothing inherently wrong in fighting
for it. Power has to be fought for, and there is nothing inherently wrong
in fighting for it. There is a struggle between the quest for power versus
the quest for freedom from other's power. I'm on freedom's side. I don't
see how this ends up with me giving up free speech - could you try spelling
it out for me?

Making this about slavery was actually part of the feminazi shit I was not going to let you pull! Better thought: you go and get your support for your position, instead of trying to make me do if for you.Rated: 4Jon

More than enough evidence has already been provided to convince anybody not obsessed with defending male privilege.Again I'm forced to wonder when your contribution to debate will be anything but name-calling. It's not "Phat's word", it's the word you chose to use.Why is that?

I think there must be a miscommunication because you've stated things in response that I'd totally agree with, as if in challenge. Also, you make non sequiturs which seem inconsistent with themselves. So let's try and work the kinks out.Limits can't be set, only self-imposed. Not only do I agree with that, I thought that was the overall point I was making (about limits). From the principle of individual rights which we have taken, then expanded as national rights, comes limits we have taken for ourselves. The reason directly changing one's culture "makes sense" is that would fall within the limits we took for ourselves. We don't want others telling us how we have to behave, but we can. I have used nations as the largest community for legitimate direct action for change, because that's how the world is divided. I didn't make it up, that's the way the world was when I was born. While it may be that certain cultures, for example WC, arc over several nations, the socio-political subcultures have become so defined that they in a sense have become their own culture (or can be treated as such a unit). And yes there are subcultures within a nation... and?I'm not even sure how any of the above is confusing or controversial.Now you raise the question of a world community. Which is exactly what I was trying to discuss within the OP. Yeah we all share the same world, and there are nations and peoples that interact within it, but is it united in a community? Perhaps we have different definitions of community?I'll repeat an earlier example. While there are wolves all around the world, and have many different packs which may interact with each other, do they all share the same "community"? I think that is an abstraction which does not represent reality.I never said that nations cannot stop trade, nor that international law did not exist so I don't know what your points on that were about. And yes change might result when a culture finds itself isolated. Certainly if a culture is expecting help from others, it will likely run into scenarios where change is necessary.Perhaps I might introduce some terms to help. I am not arguing for "self-imposed" limits on passive influence, which is indirect. I am arguing for such limits on active influence. That is to impose change, to become a cultural "policeman" if you will, rooting out injustice among others as we see it. That is different than not liking something and changing one's own actions not to assist it. Here is a clear miss on what I am saying. No it is not hypocritical to desire other people are afforded the same comforts/rights as yourself.However it IS hypocritical to attempt to IMPOSE the same comforts and rights you hold dear onto others, when one would not want such concepts (as the other views it) imposed on onesself.You can see the difference, right? A THEORY inherent in the nature of people and NOT contingent on human actions and or BELIEFS? That is a bit of pretzel logic. It is a belief itself and acted on by humans. I mean where else is it coming from? Oh yes, the NATURE of people. Who decides that? Oh yeah, people.This is the exact same thing as the concept of natural law, simply replacing God with nature of people... a disembodied ego. Okay I could be pretty sarcastic about the above statement but let me treat it as if you actually meant it...The fact that an individual conceives of "universal rights" might very well entail it being applied to anyone and everyone. That doesn't MAKE it universal, anymore than people with an idea of "absolute morality" makes their morality absolute. And while they may start huge crusades in that quest, and the gods know they'll have to, that does not justify such activity... it merely details the irrational belief which drives them on.That's almost the entire target of my opening OP. Are individual rights some objective thing, which is applicable to all, and must be applicable to all?Now the reason I don't believe you actually meant the above is that it seems out of character for someone who appears to fight absolute concepts otherwise. And from what I understand is critical of things like the Iraq War, or imperialism in general.If the above is held true, and statements like... ... are factual, then I see no room for actual criticism. Do you honestly EMBRACE the idea someone will force you to change?There is a huge line between acknowledging the fact it may happen, and embracing the idea it will. Acknowledging the fact is what leads someone to fight for their own ideals... and I would argue limit their own active influences to set precedent such that others will not use active influence.Embracing it would mean you'd be excited should homosexuality get banned, women's rights undercut, and FGM made routine... eh, if that's what people want and can force on me!I just don't believe that. I agree. This makes no impact on my position, unless you are maintaining that any and all methods of fighting are equally legitimate, and no measure of hypocrisy involved.Of course that would not mean illegitimate or hypocritical methods are WRONG, in some absolute sense. But as a practical matter it doesn't pave the way for consistency of action, only law of the jungle. If you are on the "freedom for nations to do what every they want to attain any amount of power they want to implement whatever moral code they see fit"'s side, then it could very well end up with you giving up free speech.Of course I just ignored that middle section you had about a struggle between power and freedom from others' power. The reason is because you seem to have ignored mine. That's what I'm advancing. There is a struggle, and I am saying the side of freedom should (or would) restrict the power we wield over others, as we would expect others to restrict their own.Frankly, from your apparent stated position, what would be wrong with us simply nuking the rest of the world right now... or anyway killing everyone else off, just to ensure those that are left believe in our way of life? It would seem like something you'd have to embrace.I'm assuming there's huge disconnect between the point you are making and what I am getting.Edited by Silent H, : oops I did it again...

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Then show it!Edited by AgamemJon, : damn

Jon, you are not worth paying attention to.

Hi.Please see my previous post. Is substantial contribution to debate something you're going to do, or not?

You never provided evidence that he was discussing. I would add that you have apparently ignored evidence supplied to you on this topic, and I even chose a feminist source.While I can readily agree with you that FGM, in many cases, is part of an attempt to control the sexuality of women, evidence tends to show that method actually doesn't work. It is based on a myth, instead of science, and fails.Women are still capable of sexual feelings and act on them, including having affairs. I might point out that they have more overt traditions to control the sexuality of women, that are also more effective.Can we at least come to agreement on this point? If not, why not?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I would be reticent to bandy about charges of ignoring things, were I you, when there are a multitude of direct, probative questions you have apparently decided not to even attempt to answer. (Without even getting into the fact that your sources don't support your contentions.) And the Iraq war, while a war for oil, has not lowered American gas prices. Relevance? That someone's methods don't achieve their goal is not evidence that they never had that goal in the first place.

Silent H writes:

quote:

---

I think one of the problems here is that this involves not so much these people, but that it involves children. We want to say that they are individuals and that the parents should not be able to do X with them. But isn't that their right? Isn't that part of individual rights, or rather couldn't they view parental rights to continue their traditions as they see fit as an individual right?

---

Universally? Of course not. As crashfrog pointed out, if the parent wants the child dead, then clearly others need to step in and point out that no, the parents do not have the right to kill their children.On a question of human rights: When a question of conscience requires a modification of the body, it would seem appropriate that such decisions be left to the person whose body is about to be altered. If a religious rite requires body modification, then we should wait until the person is capable of making that religious decision for himself.Now, is that a universal? Of course not. But it is a place to start. One has to explain why someone other than the person being altered is in a position to force that alteration. If you feel like you need to alter your body, you go ahead and do it...but it is your decision to make and not someone else's.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

brennakimi writes:

quote:

---

i really dislike this use of the idea of mgm. male circumcision, while not the greatest idea in the world, does not amount to a comparable practice. using this term is dishonest.

---

Considering that more males will die from MGM than the total number of females who undergo FGM, I agree: Using this term is dishonest.It's part of the socialization of being male: Your life is not important.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hello, it appears we were busy answering each others posts in different threads at the same time. I think I'll need clarity on that point. What do you mean by that first question "Universally?"For the rest, that seems to be an absolutist moral position. Why don't parents have the right to kill their children? And why does anyone else need to step in to say anything? Isn't that a relative view which members of other cultures might not hold? Why is this so? Who says? No I would agree that in our culture it sort of falls out from the concept of individual rights, but even those have limits.Particularly with regard to children, parents and society tends to be able to make decision for them, when it is viewed in their best interest, and even if it might have long lasting negative effects.And yes, that can also include death.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

i've heard a lot of things about circumcision. this i have not heard. did i say that? i said snipping off a little tiny bit of flesh doesn't equate to excising large amounts of tissue and creating a permanent, infected wound. don't put words in my mouth, jerk.

I'd like to see his source on that as well. However at Wiki there are some estimates that 1 in 500,000 results in death (though an earlier study placed a rate in the UK at 16 in 90,000). 1 in 1M result in loss of the penis.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard