FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-09-2003, 10:38 AM   #1
Honorary Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the fog of San Francisco
Posts: 12,631
Default Liberation

While cruising through PD this topic seemed like it could be interesting:

When is "liberating" a state or group of people ethical? Could it ever not be ethical? Who gets to determine what groups will be liberated? What if the subject group doesn't want to be liberated? What if the potential liberators don't want to liberate someone? What responsibilities, if any, do the liberators and liberated have to each other?

Here's one definition of liberation that I found on the net, which should do to start the discussion. Feel free to discuss if the definition needs to be modified. I'd suggest nailing down the definition (if needed) first so we're all on the same page.

Quote:
1 a liberating or being liberated

2 the seeking of equal status or just treatment for or on behalf of any group believed to be discriminated against
Please try to keep the discussion more in the MF&P than PD area.

cheers,
Michael
The Other Michael is offline  
Old 04-09-2003, 12:08 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO
Posts: 3,515
Default

I tend to think of such things in terms of the appropriateness of a removing a child from negligent or abusive parents.

Parents have a right to a fair degree of latitude in how they raise their children. I may disagree with the fact that my neighbor does not teach her child according to my religion, but that does not justify interfering with that family.

But, there is a point beyond which the treatment of the child is so abusive, that intervention may be required for the sake of the child.

My view of governments follows the same principle. There should be a very heavy presumption against interfering with the internal affairs of another country. However, there comes a point (as with a state that is seeking the extermination of a portion of its own population, or treats them with extreme harshness and cruelty) where an intervention is justified.

The line at which intervention is permissible is not clear. There will be times when one person will say that the evidence supports intervention -- where the signs of abuse are sufficiently evident -- to justify intervention while others will assert that others will assert intervention is not justified (because the behavior cannot be considered abusive, or there is not sufficient evidence, or because the abuse is not severe enough).
Alonzo Fyfe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.