Thread: Irreconcilable differences between cultures

Ok so the hypothetical situation is you are the leader of an advanced secular industrial country who acknowledges your populations human rights, outlaws slavery, and is just basically a place you would want to live. Across the world or maybe even in your own back yard there is a country where slavery is still legal, accepted and expected.

Is it your business to step in and say "hey what your doing is wrong! cut that shit out!" and risk being seen as a world police force or pressing your agenda on other cultures?
Should you just let the country learn from its own mistakes? Is it right to be ethnocentric or do ethical standard only apply to a specific culture?

I would be most interested in hearing your opinion(yes even you) .

if I believe that something is close enough to universally wrong, I'll try to convince them that it is wrong. obviously many other factors come into play, but sending delegates to talk to their government seems easy enough.

at first glance, it feels like it would be easier to converse with a neighboring culture/country, than to send messages/people across the world.

also, I wouldn't have to shout it out to the rest of the world that I was saying that they're wrong. talking in private is something I would plan on doing often, and with precision.

I tend to err on the side of human rights. Ultimately, though, it's one of those things where the decision is up to you (or your culture/country), and is probably not going to be universal.

Personally? I would say step in and do something about it (diplomatically, of course, if possible). Talking (tactfully, as no-name suggested) would be my most immediate course of action. However, if the situation is one where it is overt, violent, oppressive slavery - and not the more obscure, socio-economic 'slavery' that we have today - then I would have to start the 'civil conversation hourglass' at about half full. I don't give a fuck how 'legal' slavery might be in your country - no human being deserves to be bull-whipped; stoned; beaten; branded; starved; etc., simply because they wouldn't work for you. The way I see it: If you live by that philosophy, you can die by it. If we (my country) have the means to take you out of power (effectively treating you like you treat your non-compliant slaves), then you should be beaten down and taught your place. Fair is fair, right?

I will add that such a takedown should be carried out carefully. A wanton invasion of your country is not the way to go about it, because you risk creating a bigger problem than you were trying to solve (see: Iraq). I believe that true tyrants should be overthrown, but in a way that does a little as possible to lessen the standard of living of the everyday people in the region. However, if we're talking about a complete ideology change of the region (in which case, the entire population is already on the slavery bandwagon), then it's a little more complicated. Do you invade and risk turning the younger (not yet solidified in their beliefs) population against you, because of how they perceive your occupation/force? Do you remain less heavy-handed, adhere to diplomacy and vow to never invade - showing your awareness and moderation, but possibly giving the oppressor more wiggle room with which to violate more human rights? It's a hypothetical decision that I'm glad I don't actually have to make.

I think this line of reasoning is tackling the argument on the wrong end. What happens in reality is that interventions are carefully picked in regards to political and economical benefits, while other atrocities are silently accepted. Human Rights abuses are tolerated or even supported for years until either the beneficiaries change or the public attention becomes too strong. What's more is that often times the democratic process and human rights are actually undermined by, for example, the support of various military dictators that in turn commit genocide - and this as well is coined under the umbrella of democracy, free markets and human rights, even while it was still going on. Should governments intervene? I say not in the political system we are currently in - too many skeletons in the closet.

Although I do see the moral dilemma and obligation to helping those being oppressed and slaughtered. What I think should change is the mechanisms in which these interventions function, shifting to a more trustworthy and selfless, as well as diplomatic approach. I think no government institutions should be able to 'pull the trigger'. Decisions and the call for the need to intervene, as well as the course of actions itself should be left to non-governmental human rights umbrella groups that specialize in human rights abuses, show the cultural sensitivity necessary and lack the political and economical agenda that make the "wars for humanitarian reasons" feel like such a joke.

^I agree with that. Intervention should be done with the best, humanitarian interests in mind. In the real world, this very rarely happens, and intervention is clouded/justified/inspired by so many other (usually profitable) factors. In a hypothetical situation, I would intervene with a strictly humanitarian interest. In a realistic situation, I would try to do the same. However, I understand that (and why) intervention isn't always done with a strictly humanistic approach. Not that I condone it, but I understand it.

Large-scale intervention should only be justified when approved by a large, encompassing organization of nations (like the UN). No single country has the right to be world cop and meddle in another independent territory's internal affairs.

If you don't like slavery, and it is an important part of country X's society, well too bad. Sure you can put some diplomatic pressure, but going in guns blazing isn't going to solve anything. The population is probably OK with slavery and sees you as a foreign oppressor. It's also quite hypocritical to solve "human rights abuse" with violence and warfare, which always affects the civilian population.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Large-scale intervention should only be justified when approved by a large, encompassing organization of nations (like the UN). No single country has the right to be world cop and meddle in another independent territory's internal affairs.

If one country doesn't have the right to be world cop and meddle in another country then why is it acceptable that multiple countries do this? In the conversion from one to many is there some mystical act? Does it only become legitimate when there is more then one? What confers this legitimacy besides arbitrary whim?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If one country doesn't have the right to be world cop and meddle in another country then why is it acceptable that multiple countries do this? In the conversion from one to many is there some mystical act? Does it only become legitimate when there is more then one? What confers this legitimacy besides arbitrary whim?

I was actually gonna say something to this affect. I mean, let's say that you know that your neighbor beat his wife and children all day, everyday. One day, you stumble upon a scene where he is on his porch, and literally beating his kid within an inch of his life - I'm talking severely. Do you fall victim to the 'bystander effect,' and do nothing, because it's 'none of your business'? Do you ask permission from some governing body? Or do you intervene?

And if it's ok for you to intervene then, in such a dire situation, then how does that change, from a small to large scale scenario?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I was actually gonna say something to this affect. I mean, let's say that you know that your neighbor beat his wife and children all day, everyday. One day, you stumble upon a scene where he is on his porch, and literally beating his kid within an inch of his life - I'm talking severely. Do you fall victim to the 'bystander effect,' and do nothing, because it's 'none of your business'? Do you ask permission from some governing body? Or do you intervene?

And if it's ok for you to intervene then, in such a dire situation, then how does that change, from a small to large scale scenario?

If the kid is crying out for help then you can become his agent to help protect himself. If not then how do you know the kid doesn't want to be beaten? Would it be bizarre for him to ask his/her father to beat them? Absolutely but you don't know the situation at hand and could be interfering with a voluntary action.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If one country doesn't have the right to be world cop and meddle in another country then why is it acceptable that multiple countries do this? In the conversion from one to many is there some mystical act? Does it only become legitimate when there is more then one? What confers this legitimacy besides arbitrary whim?

Having many nations support intervention eliminates the possibility of a single nation pushing a personal agenda. I honestly believe that there are some circumstances where violating the sovereignty of an independent nation can be justified (e.g. genocide). Widespread approval for intervention in these circumstances shouldn't be hard to come by.

I like the last line of your first post Oneironaut.

Its tricky, on one hand we have no right meddling in another countries affairs but if they are abusing their citizens human rights, what can we do? Sartre says even not making a choice is still making a choice. Spariate said "The population is probably OK with slavery and sees you as a foreign oppressor." and this is what I'm really getting at. We collectively know that slavery is wrong but they believe the opposite so who is right? Surely if the two hold contradictory views they cannot both be right?

Talking about ethics is for me very tricky business. There are no easy answers.

Whether it be a kid, woman or anyone, I would intervene. The analogy is pretty good but it is more complicated when it comes to disputing nations. I think a person who stops someone from getting beat up wouldn't be accused of imperialism or pushing his agenda on other people.

One of the reason I started this thread is because right now there is a bill in Uganda that if passed, will make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. Yes you heard right, in this day and age. Many countries around the world including America have expressed extreme disapproval and there is alot of pressure being put on their government to not pass the bill. No surprise that American evangelicals are supporting the passing of this bill.

I think it is despicable and a violation of human rights. Some people are considering the US' intervention (diplomatic not military obviously) to be an act of American imperialism and bigotry and I am in no way a patriot/nationalist but I completely support the US' stance on this bill and hope it serves as a message to other countries violating human rights.

Do you guys think it is right to intervene in other countries policy making process if it violates human rights?

Here is a link to petition the bill
Avaaz - 24 hours to stop Uganda's anti-gay bill!

I know I am skeptical of the effectiveness of signing a petition as well I don't live in Uganda and cant vote so I hope anyone who is interested will sign it, it takes literally 1 minute. Thank you.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

One of the reason I started this thread is because right now there is a bill in Uganda that if passed, will make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. Yes you heard right, in this day and age. Many countries around the world including America have expressed extreme disapproval and there is alot of pressure being put on their government to not pass the bill. No surprise that American evangelicals are supporting the passing of this bill.

I think it is despicable and a violation of human rights. Some people are considering the US' intervention (diplomatic not military obviously) to be an act of American imperialism and bigotry and I am in no way a patriot/nationalist but I completely support the US' stance on this bill and hope it serves as a message to other countries violating human rights.

Do you guys think it is right to intervene in other countries policy making process if it violates human rights?

Here is a link to petition the bill
Avaaz - 24 hours to stop Uganda's anti-gay bill!

I know I am skeptical of the effectiveness of signing a petition as well I don't live in Uganda and cant vote so I hope anyone who is interested will sign it, it takes literally 1 minute. Thank you.

Well first, it's none of the U.S. business what Uganda does so long as it doesn't coerce our "citizens." We have enough problems with our government trying to run our lives and minimizing its power in our sphere of life that individuals who are against the state should not support situations which would cause expansion of the power into new areas. Economic sanctions would only hurt the Ugandan people. Don't even get me started on military intervention.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well first, it's none of the U.S. business what Uganda does so long as it doesn't coerce our "citizens." We have enough problems with our government trying to run our lives and minimizing its power in our sphere of life that individuals who are against the state should not support situations which would cause expansion of the power into new areas. Economic sanctions would only hurt the Ugandan people. Don't even get me started on military intervention.

I don't support military intervention in the slightest. The US most definitely has problems but such severe violations of human right should not be tolerated. I respect that Uganda is a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with their government but we are sending them a message that this bill will not be tolerated by most of the worlds nations and there is talk of economic sanctions.

This is an extremely sticky issue, I grant that. We would be pissed if some other country told us we were not running our country right and tried to interfere in our decision making process but the US does not commit these kinds of despicable violation of human rights that are in question. The right to love whomever you choose is not a gay right, it is a human right. We are living in a different time now, dictators who treat their people like shit will not be tolerated and hopefully will soon be a thing of the past. Its funny because a year ago I would have hated someone like me right now.

Like I said this is a sticky situation and there are no easy answers but I have made a conviction and will stick by it. I do not think that this bill will be passed and hopefully it will spread a message to other would be dictators out there. I realized just now that I am not an anarchist anymore, I cant believe Im arguing for America

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I don't support military intervention in the slightest. The US most definitely has problems but such severe violations of human right should not be tolerated. I respect that Uganda is a sovereign nation and we have no business interfering with their government but we are sending them a message that this bill will not be tolerated by most of the worlds nations and there is talk of economic sanctions.

Ok well I wish you luck in your venture to create a private group of concerned individuals over the topic of Uganda legislation.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

This is an extremely sticky issue, I grant that. We would be pissed if some other country told us we were not running our country right and tried to interfere in our decision making process but the US does not commit these kinds of despicable violation of human rights that are in question. The right to love whomever you choose is not a gay right, it is a human right. We are living in a different time now, dictators who treat their people like shit will not be tolerated and hopefully will soon be a thing of the past. Its funny because a year ago I would have hated someone like me right now.

Well our government has different reasons to kill people.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Like I said this is a sticky situation and there are no easy answers but I have made a conviction and will stick by it. I do not think that this bill will be passed and hopefully it will spread a message to other would be dictators out there. I realized just now that I am not an anarchist anymore, I cant believe Im arguing for America

Well are you really arguing for "America?"

I realize that I sound like a wannabe Captain America trying to save the world but the implications of this bill extend beyond just Uganda. I what I mean by I'm arguing for America is that I support their current position regarding this bill which is a change because usually I'm complaining about their foreign policy.