Clash of Civilizations? Where should we draw the line?

[Moonlight Graham]

In the ever globalizing world, i think this is one of the most fascinating debates & issues in political philosophy/ethics. I'm not talking about multiculturalism in our own western countries, i'm talking about where exactly do you think we should draw the line between "human rights" + our values of what is "right vs wrong" VS respecting the rights/practices of other cultures in their own sovereign countries.

For example, many women in the middle-eastern countries are denied the right to vote. The West criticizes this, but should these countries have the right to determine their own laws no matter how "unjust" they may seem to us? Are we just to criticize this since it's been less than a century since women in Canada attained suffrage and weren't even legally defined as "persons" by the Supreme Court?

Also read recently of a person in Iran who was to be executed by stoning, which caused international uproar. Most in the West think this is appalling, but do Iranians have the right to determine their own penalties of law? Do we have much right to criticize this since capital punishment in Canada was legal until the 1970's, and many U.S. states still execute people?

This can obviously extend to many other countries and cultures besides the middle-east/Islam, including those in Africa & Asia.

Just want to know where do you think the line is for us in the West determining what "universal human rights" should be? Is there such a thing? Do we have the right to determine what is right/wrong for other cultures? Should we intervene militarily over internal conflicts in countries like Sudan/Rwanda on the basis of "human rights"?

Edited July 29, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Yesterday]

What I see when looking at countries torn with human rights issues are remnants of world wide customs that every race and culture shared at one time or another at least generally. Religious law/persecution, slave labour/starvation, ethnic cleansing...there is not one person on this board who can state that their ancestors at one time or another were not subjected to any one or more human rights issues.

Look at us now, here in Canada and the US. Regardless of our religion, ancestral culture, race and so on we live free from most forms of infringement on our human rights. In fact, IMO, looking back through history we here in both the US and Canada have set records for standards of living and equality, look how we have benefited.

Look also at the fact that even with the major cultural adaptation that was required to create Canada we can still, some of us anyway, define ourselves as both our ancestral culture and our Canadian heritage. Ie: Canadian Scot, Irish Canadian, French Canadian...what would be wrong with Muslim Canadian or Canadian Muslim? Nothing if you ask me.

It is not wrong to expect such change from any up and coming nation or immigrant. It, IMO, would be a waste if we did not both share our experience in making the adaptation and express global expectations of our desire to see the whole world as socially stable as we are.

I do not agree with war as a means to an end over human rights issues but continual public pressure and trade sanctions when appropriate could go a long way. We need to intervene appropriately. These issues are no less important as it was to end black racism...witch hunts...

[charter.rights]

The slippery slope:

If we believe we have the right to criticize other nations for poor human rights records, what about the criticisms of Canada for its poor human rights issues?

Native people are marginalized, and must fight against institutional racism, and our treatment does not conform with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, let alone our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We still have the residential school legacy where more than 50% of the children stolen away from their mothers' arms at gunpoint were alleged to have been murdered. Then we have 1 in 3 of the survivors being subjected to physical, mental and sexual abuses to which the offenders have not bee prosecuted. And even today we have more children in foster care, removed for reasons the United Nations defines as genocide (poverty) than all that ever went through foster care.

We have a long way to go in their moccasins before we can criticize anyone else.

[Remiel]

To put it shortly, because I really think I should be hitting the sack, like, an hour ago: I do think we have the right to criticize other cultures. What is unwarranted, however, is that we should feel self-righteous about it because we do not happen to be doing the same thing anymore. Most moral relativism, I believe, is flawed, because it elevates " tolerance " to the status of being some sort of universal value, which is contradictory because most cultures do not contain a tradition of toleration (including ours, up until very recently), so it is kind of useless as a yard stick.

I thin we would be better served by something like moral skepticism combined with pragmatism.

Also, I roll my eyes every time I see the phrase " Clash of Civilizations. " Samual Huntington, as far as this particular theory goes, is a dufus. The generalizations he makes are mind-boggling.

[Bonam]

In the ever globalizing world, i think this is one of the most fascinating debates & issues in political philosophy/ethics. I'm not talking about multiculturalism in our own western countries, i'm talking about where exactly do you think we should draw the line between "human rights" and our values of what is "right vs wrong" VS respecting the rights/practices of other cultures in their own sovereign countries.

For example, many women in the middle-eastern countries are denied the right to vote. The West criticizes this, but should these countries have the right to determine their own laws no matter how "unjust" they may seem to us? Do we have the right to criticize this since it's been less than a century since women in Canada attained suffrage and weren't even legally defined as "persons" by the Supreme Court?

Also read recently of a person in Iran who was to be executed by stoning, which caused international uproar. Most in the West think this is appalling, but do Iranians have the right to determine their own penalties of law? Do we have much right to criticize this since capital punishment in Canada was legal until the 1970's, and many U.S. states still execute people?

This can obviously extend to many other countries and cultures besides the middle-east/Islam, including those in Africa & Asia.

Just want to know where do you think the line is for us in the West determining what "universal human rights" should be? Is there such a thing? Do we have the right to determine what is right/wrong for other cultures? Should we intervene militarily over internal conflicts in countries like Sudan/Rwanda on the basis of "human rights"?

We can criticize whatever we want... freedom of speech and all that jazz. Now as for defining "universal human rights", such definitions only have meaning if they are somehow enforced. Declaring something to be a "universal right" but then not enforcing that right around the world is meaningless, hence, among other things, the irrelevance of the UN and its ideas of human rights. That of course doesn't stop people from preaching about these rights.

As to whether we should intervene militarily.. that is a more interesting question. From my point of view, military intervention involves a large expenditure of wealth and of lives by the country doing the intervening. If they get no benefit from such intervention, how can they be expected to intervene? On the other hand, when atrocities are sufficiently grave, such as genocide on a vast scale, one can definitely see the argument for having a system where other nations will intervene. Whatever the failures of the people in a given country, generally, they probably did not deserve mass extermination, and are clearly unable to defend themselves in the given context. So, if something like the Holocaust were to happen again, one can hope that other nations would intervene, even if such intervention would give them no direct benefit.

But laws about stonings and such? No, nations definitely can have sovereignty in this respect, and I certainly would not support military intervention simply to free a given people from laws that are unjust only to the extent that Iran's laws are unjust. It would have to be far far worse before I could see the argument for military intervention purely on humanitarian grounds.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Bonam

[Shwa]

I tend to agree with Bonam's take on things. We have the right and freedom to express what we believe Universal Human Rights ought to be. And the keyword is 'ought.'

However, I believe the intention of "universal" human rights is in order to set some sort of global standard that operates at the global level. Kind of like the IEEE and their technological standards. If you want your system to interface with our system, we will have to come together to try and define a common protocol of behaviour to allow those two systems to talk. Any country can define their own "internet" running on a protocol of their choosing, but if they want to gain the benefits of our system, there is a certain amount of compliance with our standards they will have to make. For the most part, it is likely better that a system change is voluntary rather than forced, for obvious reasons.

I think the biggest clash is becoming one of nationalism or even internationalism, especially with the concept of moral relativism enters the picture and focuses more on culture than borders. Thus if some culture wants to treat women differently and make moral or behavioural trade-offs with their customs, they do not necessarily have that 'right' to do so where other (or our) standards have been adopted. The other aspect is trying to view other cultures - that have a long standing occupation of a certain place - as "nations." This would mean that the Kurds, for example, would be considered a "nation" for the purposes of global standards.

Of course, I idealize, but not anymore than most proponents. When we add politics, power, investment, etc. into the mix, sometimes the original vision gets muddied, but that is only the perspective of application. So long as the underlying protocol is there, it can always be referred to when applications go wonky. As they often do.