Human Rights Abuses In America (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Slidey
- Start date
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Voice of reason.Slidey said:
I'm of two minds about human rights discourse. On the one hand, it accords with many of my personally held values - I have been brought up in an essentially Western/Judeo-Christian/Liberal ethical tradition after all. On the other hand, I am a relativist and so some aspects of human rights discourse leave that bitter taste of imperialism in my mouth, making me mildly uncomfortable with it (an extension of first world guilt perhaps?).
I designed an assignment last year where I looked at the human rights issue in the context of Western vs. Confucian ethical traditions. While I don't personally share the values espoused by Confucian ethics I don't see them as entirely unreasonable either - they seem to be just another way of structuring/governing society. The main clash that struck me is that the primary autonomous unit in the Western/Liberal ethical tradition is the individual whereas in Confucianism it is the family. The UN declaration on bioethics and human rights cites individual autonomy as one of its core principles, and individual liberty/freedom is similarly central to the better known declaration on human rights. This naturally creates a problem when such declarations are forced upon societies with a Confucian, or similar communitarian background (ignoring political issues like whether governments like China even succesfully adhere to a Confucian framework or not).
Granted, there are issues with ethical theories which are structured around a social unit other than the individual, but I'm not here to debate their validity (I'm a relativist after all!). Rather, I don't think such ethical theories are clearly, or unmistakably wrong. They just seem like another way of doing things. For example, in the Confucian tradition the family typically controls medical decision making where part of the reasoning is that doing so allows the sick individual to focus on recovery and not have to carry the burden of complex decision making. For much of last century in certain locations in China it was the family which signed to give consent for surgery, not the patient! Many westerners probably recoil at the thought of not controlling one's own healthcare. Nonetheless, the arguments made in favor of such family-centered approaches still seem reasonable enough.
Arguments can be brought to bear, I'm sure, which might show one approach to be favourable in a particular light or another. However, I'm tempted to call naive any individual who would label one approach as objectively, absolutely wrong. The fact that we are unable to do this (I realise this claim requires an argument and can't merely be assumed without begging the question on this whole issue) constitutes, to me, the central issue with human rights discourse. Some candidate rules are clearly not going to work of course , e.g. the principle 'everyone has the right to assault those who stare' --> such a right is too unstable and prone to generate deleterious consequences. But then there are the reasonable, but incompatible, ones...
Quote John Rawls:
“Now the serious problem is this. A modern democratic society is characterised not simply by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines.”
I designed an assignment last year where I looked at the human rights issue in the context of Western vs. Confucian ethical traditions. While I don't personally share the values espoused by Confucian ethics I don't see them as entirely unreasonable either - they seem to be just another way of structuring/governing society. The main clash that struck me is that the primary autonomous unit in the Western/Liberal ethical tradition is the individual whereas in Confucianism it is the family. The UN declaration on bioethics and human rights cites individual autonomy as one of its core principles, and individual liberty/freedom is similarly central to the better known declaration on human rights. This naturally creates a problem when such declarations are forced upon societies with a Confucian, or similar communitarian background (ignoring political issues like whether governments like China even succesfully adhere to a Confucian framework or not).
Granted, there are issues with ethical theories which are structured around a social unit other than the individual, but I'm not here to debate their validity (I'm a relativist after all!). Rather, I don't think such ethical theories are clearly, or unmistakably wrong. They just seem like another way of doing things. For example, in the Confucian tradition the family typically controls medical decision making where part of the reasoning is that doing so allows the sick individual to focus on recovery and not have to carry the burden of complex decision making. For much of last century in certain locations in China it was the family which signed to give consent for surgery, not the patient! Many westerners probably recoil at the thought of not controlling one's own healthcare. Nonetheless, the arguments made in favor of such family-centered approaches still seem reasonable enough.
Arguments can be brought to bear, I'm sure, which might show one approach to be favourable in a particular light or another. However, I'm tempted to call naive any individual who would label one approach as objectively, absolutely wrong. The fact that we are unable to do this (I realise this claim requires an argument and can't merely be assumed without begging the question on this whole issue) constitutes, to me, the central issue with human rights discourse. Some candidate rules are clearly not going to work of course , e.g. the principle 'everyone has the right to assault those who stare' --> such a right is too unstable and prone to generate deleterious consequences. But then there are the reasonable, but incompatible, ones...
Quote John Rawls:
“Now the serious problem is this. A modern democratic society is characterised not simply by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines.”
sif human rights abuses in America.
America is the greatest country/civilization/society ever invented by mankind.
Personal liberty, freedom and justice for all.
Anyone who says otherwise is a communist nazi muslim.
America is the greatest country/civilization/society ever invented by mankind.
Personal liberty, freedom and justice for all.
Anyone who says otherwise is a communist nazi muslim.
Dongle
Member
Surely it's within America's 'enshrined' rights to question the government? Or should we blindly follow the will of an elite few, motivated by their own political interests?what971 said:
America is anything but the absolute standard on moral rights. Its moral slide has seriously damaged its credibility. It's great to be cynical and sceptical in this world of geopolitics.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Except towards mother China, for she is without flawDongle said:
America's finished.
That countrie's trouble. The leaders are rotten and the people are idiotic as sin.
America has some of the brightest people but America also has some of the most twisted bastards ever and they happen to run the government.
It's only a matter of time before the whole structure crumbles.
That countrie's trouble. The leaders are rotten and the people are idiotic as sin.
America has some of the brightest people but America also has some of the most twisted bastards ever and they happen to run the government.
It's only a matter of time before the whole structure crumbles.
Dongle
Member
Don't use that straw man tactic, fucktard. I'm not some brainless zombie. I know there are serious human rights issues in China. But isn't this thread about America?Captain Gh3y said: