14 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusYou think communists have no morals? Wow.
Position C: amoralism. [Think of godless communism.]
There is only one world and we have to share it. Given that not everyone is going to convert to Position A and that the proponents of Position A have not sufficient power to enforce universal conversion to Position A, how are we to get along? By condemning the proponents of A-prime and B and C and telling them they are "pigs doomed to the dustbin of God's Plan A", or rather by according them the same respect and dignity that you would show your like-minded Position A membership?
I am sure we can find ways to get along. But that doesn't make your position right, nor does it make A-prime, B and C right. China is wrong about its human rights whether or not it likes being criticized by the West and whether or not it does something about it when criticized. And the US is wrong about its own human rights too.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you say that the Americans would be within their rights to tell the British to dump their monarchy and get themselves a president? If not, why not?
I am sure we can find ways to get along. But that doesn't make your position right, nor does it make A-prime, B and C right. China is wrong about its human rights whether or not it likes being criticized by the West and whether or not it does something about it when criticized. And the US is wrong about its own human rights too.
Would the British be within their rights to tell the Americans to recant their Declaration of Independence and to return to being a crown colony? If not, why not?
Could it, maybe, just possibly, be because it’s none of their business? Because it’s an internal matter?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusYes.
Would you say that the Americans would be within their rights to tell the British to dump their monarchy and get themselves a president? If not, why not?
Would the British be within their rights to tell the Americans to recant their Declaration of Independence and to return to being a crown colony?
No.
If not, why not?
That would be a fairly long political rant.
Could it, maybe, just possibly, be because it’s none of their business? Because it’s an internal matter?
No.
Does this have anything to do with morality?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusWow, you've completely lost the thread of the argument here. The fact that a moral judgment gets ignored or dismissed doesn't entail, or even suggest, that the moral criticism wasn't valid, appropriate, justified or whatever. This "response" of yours, again, fails to address the objection. Those in favor of Jim Crow could have told MLK Jr. to butt out, mind his own business, etc. They could have simply dismissed his moral criticisms out of hand. But this doesn't mean they would be justified in doing so. To put the original question another way: Why would Jim Crow supporters be justified in ignoring Gandhi's criticisms but unjustified in ignoring MLK Jr.'s criticisms? This is the type of question you're having trouble grasping here, and it's what's preventing you from seeing that your position unravels really, really quickly under scrutiny.
"Suppose Gandhi similarly passed moral condemnation on U.S. culture for the same set of reasons. MLK Jr. does it from within the culture, Gandhi does it from outside the culture. But (here's the objection) why the hell does this make a difference? Do you have an explanation or do you not? "
External moral criticism may be ignored for the same reason that ...[text shortened]... na's economic criticism of capitalism: 'it's none of their business,' 'it's an internal affair.'
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusSo, on your view, this culture would be justified in defending itself from foreign invasion but unjustified in claiming that the invaders were acting wrongly. This is where you should be getting embarrassed.
"On your view, if U.S. culture was committed to a norm of moral imperialism and set off to intervene in the affairs of other cultures, those cultures wouldn't have grounds to criticize the U.S. Why? Because, on your view, that would be to pass a moral judgement on U.S. culture from outside of it. "
They certainly have grounds to defend their own culture from foreign invasion.