Originally Posted by
Logic
No, they are fundamentally different - like I said, I think the invasion of Iraq is an example the US imposing self interest (although one false rationalization was that it was for mutual interest), while intervening in the Rwandan genocide, which the US did not do, would have been for mutual interest (true compassion doesn't have any economic incentives - probably why it did not happen).
I am not advocating stopping people for bizarre ideologies, but stopping people for bizarre
acts caused by their bizarre ideologies. The two go hand in hand.
Likewise I am not defending US intervention in Iraq, especially since Saddam Hussein was likely US puppet to begin with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CONsolg95E
Yes, those are both part of the first type of intervention that I outlined in the earlier post.
So you would rather have not done it?
Surely you mean the second type of intervention.
No, there are 2 ways about it. You can allow people to have freedom of thought and belief , while still intervene when their actions endanger others.
That is it. I assumed
action tied to ideological convictions in my previous post, because that's what always happens.
If Hitler quietly believed that Jews have to be exterminated, we wouldn't have any problem. alas, people have a tendency to act on their convictions.
So, tying it back to the Iran thing, the execution should be condemned or even stopped because it is a public health issue, not because it manifests "uncivilized beliefs." It is hypocritical and contradictory to impose ethics on others.
Isn't imposing ethics on others precisely what you would be doing by intervening into their executions? I understand the whole "punish actions not thoughts" thing, but by condemning one you are condemning the other. People don't act without motivations.
This type of thinking is exactly what we are criticizing about the Iranian govt. and the Nazis. That somehow you are born into the culture with the one correct, universal understanding of reality, whose methods of reasoning and acting have generated in you the perfect understanding of the common good, and that you have the authority to force that on others.
Nowhere did i say anything about perfect understanding and inherent entitlement. All i was getting at is that there is
no way of completely isolating your perspective from your cultural background, so all you
can do is try to use your reason and be as objective as possible.
because all we have is our own understanding of what the public good really is.
And what? Idly observing events is somehow better? Do we get "morality points" for shutting down our collective judgment and just chilling?
You say that you would intervene for a public health issue, but why? Could it be because we
all want to live and be happy? But that's just
your own understanding of what the public good really is. In reality Iranians are saving that woman from eternal damnation in hell by stoning her, because they have a secret knowledge revealed to them by God.
tl;dr: you have to work with what you have got.
Last edited by Odlov; Jul 10, 2010 at 09:33 PM.