Glory

Much to my annoyance, it is always possible for me to be wrong except when I am discussing what I think. I consider myself an adulterated authority on my oppinions.

Glory

Glory

Only my observation of human nature. In my admittedly limited experience I have found that most people like to impose their values on others to one extent or another.

I wish to make it clear that I referenced the Chinese people because they had already been invoked. I in no way think that the Chinese are in any way more prone to trying to impose their values on other cultures or individuals than any other ethnic group.

Glory

Arrowman

If I may jump in here, as this is a subject which interests me...

Yep. I have no problem with believing that on some core issues of human ethics "I am right". If I did not believe this my personal ethics would be seriously devalued. In this particular case, I believe it is objectively demonstrable that older men having sex with young girls is, if not universally harmful, then overwhelmingly so and therefore undesirable. I have no problem with imposing this ethic on others - and in particular, I have no problem with the western imported legal code being applied to indigenous Australians without regard for their "cultural heritage". (Even granted that that behaviour is a significant part of indigenous cultural heritage, which I do not believe most indigenous Australians would argue.)

Depends on what "moral values" you refer to. But in general, I value an ethical system based on an objective analysis of what is best for (most acceptable to) human beings over on which is based on ancient tradition and superstition.

Actually, and depending on your definition of "US values" (let's say "western values"), my answer is a qualified "yes, they should - eventually". By this I mean that
1. I believe it is demonstrable that western values have allowed greater freedom and development of the human race than ME values. In essence, the ME is stuck in the same religion-induced Dark Ages from which the West escaped centuries ago - and that is the primary reason (imho) for the discordance between the west and ME today.
2. At the same time, I believe that those values should not be "imposed" (which implies some form of force) but rather that we should make every effort to facilitate what I see as the inevitable replacement of "ME values" with "western values". I believe this not because of cultural relativism, but for the more practical reason that imposition of values by force never works.

Some of the above is hopelessly vague, I know - words like "western values have allowed greater freedom and development of the human race" for example - but I hope my point is made, even if only in very general terms.

Amen-Moses

Let me expound a minute, when I said ME I mean the me that lives by UK cultural standards and I take umbrage at the fact that you try to lump ME in with some "western" standard. As far as the issue of consentual sex or indeed the wider issue of what age a person becomes culpable for their actions (i.e at what age they are actually allowed to exhibit free-will) ME varies considerably from the US (as far as any one "US" standard can be agreed), in fact I have been personally labelled an immoral monster by US'ers because of these differences.

My use of China is simply that on this issue chinese culture defines a much higher age of culpability so from their standpoint the "western" standard(s) are as immoral looking as the aboriginal standard appears to you.

Personally I am quite happy just to admit that different cultures have different standards on this issue and that no single one of them can be deemed as "right" over and above the others.

Now when it comes to different issues, i.e non-consentual matters such as physical assualt or rape then I find it far less acceptable but have yet to find a single culture in which these behaviours are deemed acceptable.

I want to give a simple example here to show why I think that claims of rational or logical examination of ethical questions are bogus please just go along with this thought experiment for a moment and see what thoughts you have:

I am in a foxhole with twelve soldiers, I am a simple trooper. A hand grenade enters the foxhole and lands nearest to me, I leap on the hand grenade and save the lives of my buddies, I am a hero. My actions are described as selfless and above and beyond the call of duty.

Now I am in the same foxhole with the same guys but I am the platoon NCO, it is my responsibility to look after my men, I land on the hand grenade etc. My actions are described as doing my duty.

Now I am in the foxhole and a simple trooper but I am not the nearest to the hand grenade so I push the guy who is nearest onto the hand grenade. Now I am a murderer and will probably face a courts marshall.

Now I am in the foxhole and I am the NCO and I reason that as it is my duty to protect my men, not just for this one incident but for future ones too, then I cannot do my duty and also abandon my men so instead I grab the nearest guy and throw him onto the hand grenade. I save the lives of the rest of my men, I keep the fighting ability of my unit intact and also remain able to lead them into action possibly saving countless other lives. Have I acted morally or not, and if not why not. Logic and reason dictates that this must be a morally acceptable act does it not?

Amen-Moses

Glory

Do you have documentation on this. I am not very knowledgeable about Chinese sexual practices.



Anything goes so long as it's part of the culture? You don't draw a line anywhere? Sodomising nine year olds is fine because it's a tradition?

This kind of reasoning can be applied to rationalise every atrocity in history. The holocaust? German culture. The inqusition? Spanish, catholic culture. The Taliban enslaving half the population of Afghanistan? Muslim culture? Muslim culture. Arabs holding their American daughters hostage in Saudi? Arab culture.



It depends on how you define your terms. Is it rape to take a child to your bed? Is it rape when the child has been taught that it is their duty to please adults? Is it at least abuse? Is it rape when a man forces his wife to have sex with him by controlling how much she and their children have to eat? I doubt that the practioners of these things would use the word rape but does that change the fact of what happens?



A choice you make for yourself.



Not by me. The fact of your being in command does not detract from the heroism of the act.



You made a choice for someone else that was not your right to make.



Same as above. You made a choice that, regardless of your reasons, was not yours to make.

You need to define your premises. What are you tying to prove with logic? That killing someone is justifiable? That there is a fine line between heroism and suicide? That reasoning can be faulty? That two lines of reasoning can be contradictory?

How about this premise? One's life and body are ones own and must not be appropriated for someone else's purpose. (yes, I am extremely opposed to the draft)

Follow this premise with another. To allow another to come to harm through inaction is to place one's self in danger.

Lastly, to fail to stop a wrongful act is to causes one to become complicit in said wrongful act.

Now logic can be applied to these premises in an attempt to prove them.

Of course not all premises can be proven empirically. Sometimes we are stuck with oppinion.

Glory

Amen-Moses

I think that is my entire point! Maybe we agree more than we realise?

Amen-Moses

Glory

Could be, could be...

Glory

Arrowman

I can't believe I did this - when I read your post, I took "ME" to mean "Middle East", not "Amen-Moses". It must have been the prior mention of China, combined with the topicality of "western vs Middle East" issues which led me to think that way. We are on completely different pages in that part of the discussion. Sorry. I feel like a dork.

Arrowman

Before I respond further to Amen-Moses, I'd like to tell a story which I think is rather appropriate. It is from South Park - the episode in which Cartman gets involved with NAMBLA.

At the end, the NAMBLA guys are arrested by the FBI. With the citizens of South Park standing around, the chief NAMBLA guy launches into an impassioned speech on freedom, liberty, and respect for the rights of others etc. Violin music plays, and the crowd lapses into a sort of "he's got a point, you know" contemplation. At the end of the speech, silence falls. And one of the kids (Stan, I think) says:

"Dude, you have sex with children."

For a moment the crowd recovers from their reverie. Then the violin music starts again, and the NAMBLA guy continues his speech. Again the crowd becomes thoughtful. Again, the speech ends and silence falls. Again, Stan says

"Dude, you have sex with children."

Back with more later.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Glory

I love that show.

Glory