Cultural Imperialism

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1356607]

Comments

[natural20.livejournal.com]

Something must always be done, but there are a very large variety of possible responses.

[matgb]

This. Sometimes the "something" proposed is worse than the original problem.

[andrewducker]

Of course it is. People are like that.

[ladysisyphus.livejournal.com]

Agreed, with a side helping of, the farther that madman gets away, the more difficult it is to do something, and the more likely it is that said 'something' will make the matter worse, owing to matters of politics, geography, and culture.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

You never actually stated something must be done by any particular party until the last question. Personally I believe those more local to the situation would be best to deal with any situation first before bringing in outside help.

[girl-onthego.livejournal.com]

this, with the added observation that you don't say who's doing the something - only that something must be done (presumably by someone). Something must be done in all situations of justice. Who is best placed to do it is another question.

[cdave]

Most (of the three existing) comments focus on the broadness of the something.

It's the forcefulness of the must that worries me.

I know what triggered this, so this may have shaped my answers.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

This is ... extremely loaded. I hope that's deliberate.

IMO, the closer to home something is, the more confident we can be that our judgements that it is wrong and that we know what to do to fix it are correct, and the further away it is, the more likely those judgements are to be misguided in some way. I also believe in the right of other countries to be sovereign in their own territory and not be policed by the country that happens to be the most powerful.

[andrewducker]

Yes, the loading is deliberate.

I also believe in the right of other countries to be sovereign in their own territory and not be policed by the country that happens to be the most powerful.

So genocide is fine, so long as it's legal in the country in which it occurs?

(Yes, that's an extreme example, but your statement seemed equally extreme.)

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

No, it's not "fine", but I don't think it's morally right for other countries to punish it, either. And, on a pragmatic level, recent world history has shown that we make things worse.

If someone else's child hits his little sister, that's wrong of him, but it would also be wrong of me (a stranger not in loco parentis) to punish him.

[andrewducker]

So how long would you watch him punch his little sister? Until her nose bleeds? Until she falls unconscious?

And _some_ recent world history has shown we make things worse. I believe that a lot of the work in the Balkans was seen as a good thing, where genocide was prevented.

[cdave]

Playing that game.

Given the options presented to Parliament: War in Iraq. Do nothing for several months. Which way do you want your MP to vote?

[andrewducker]

Why do my morals have to fit in with parliamentary democracy?

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify: I'm assuming, possibly wrongly, that the kind of intervention you're talking about is large-scale and probably violent. If that's not the case, then I change my position. For example, if there's a genocide going on and we can give the victims safe passage over here and grant them asylum, then that's a good idea; that's not policing anyone or aggravating situations we don't understand.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

"The genocide is fine, if its legal in the country where it occurs" one is interesting:

Under Nazi law, being Jewish was essentially illegal. So was being homosexual.

After the war, the former was understood as genocide, but the latter wasn't, because - as I understand it - pre- and post- Nazi penal codes still defined homosexuality as illegal.

On this, I've often wondered what someone who was both Jewish and gay would say and where they would fit.

More generally, it's about different understandings - what is murder, rape, psychopathy etc, and are they universals?

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I refused to answer the last question because I don't agree with either of the answers.

bad poll

:-)

[andrewducker]

Then tell us what your answer would be.

Bad comment.

:->

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Nope, bad reply!

;-P

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

If there's a serial killer next door, then I will call the police and maybe attempt to engage in fisticuffs.

If there's a serial killer in Montreal, what the hell am I supposed to do? Buy a train ticket and hope that they are still in Montreal when I get there, eh? I'll just have wasted my money.

A serial killer in the States or in Switzerland is a matter for the local constabulary.

This is clearly not about Iraq, as you are using a verb in the present tense, whereas Saddam's excesses happenned fifteen years before 2003.

[andrewducker]

It's an abstract moral question, not linked to any particular instance of rape/torture.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

If people even consider the chance of "us" and "then" which is incredibly easy, then there are a whole loads of psychological mechanisms that take over. People will naturally favour the group they perceive to be a part of. Its called ingroup outgroup if you want to look further into the psychology of prejudice.

[zz]

maybe i've listened to too much Turisas today, but being a madman raping and killing sounds like a fun day out. :)

[avatar.livejournal.com]

For the most part, I agree with the_magician's comment for that last question. My answer was pretty much "both". The world can be divided and they should help themselves rather than relying on us, but it is also made up of people - who, generally, deserve our help equally.

I answered something must be done to all except the last one regarding the different continents. My logic is going to be a little flawed here. First off, I'm in Australia, and the next country over is probably New Zealand, a country which would probably really really need some help in such a situation, and we'd really be obliged. The next continent over, is Asia, which is quite a different story. The thing is, there are rules between different continents - and countries if you look further out - which may suggest that they don't want our help. In which case, interference will just make things worse.

Hell, check out the war on terror between the almighty US and terror-ridden Afghanistan. Textbook.

[andrewducker]

My answer was pretty much "both".
Glad to hear it. Means you're dealing with the world in a nuanced fashion :->

may suggest that they don't want our help
Who? The torturers or the people being tortured?

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Good point!