How can the concept of universal human rights exist within a framework of moral-ethical relativism and/or moral isolationism?

[Stoneheart]

Overall yes, as bad as today is the period was marked by far worse, furthermore our total removal or destabalization of existing power structures is often the cause of these problems.

The old governments were alot worse than even belgian colonial rule.

Contextually yes considering economics, history and circustance. Not to mention the flawed nature of IQ as a measurement of intelligence anyway (or even personal merit). To explore your question would you consider an comparison of IQ in an aristocratic Kenyan Family vs an appalatian poverty striken area a valid comparison?

I dont why you are talking about IQ now. The comparison isnt realy needed, the worst president in US history had kenyan genes and a afluent western upbringing and he almost turned the US into an african country.

Mistakes are only relavent when someone digs up a bad idea from the past. Not in the least because you didnt rebuke my point the beliefs were constructed to prevent the entire system from collapsing under it's own hypocrisy, cynicism and greed which relates back to the thread.

those beliefs werent constructed from thin air, they were constructed based on observation. Is the belief to be superior not natural if half naked people with spear charge into your maxim gun whenever you met them on the battlefield?

 

[Zarael]

Human rights can't exist in such a framework, anyone saying otherwise is the moral-political-philosophical equivalent of somebody looting a house that they set on fire. They're promoting a relativistic/atomistic philosophy that's bound to inspire chaos, and yet they want all the benefits that living in a rule-of-law society would theoretically grant them.

More or less. It's just another case of materialists wanting their cake and eating it too. That said I think "human rights" has become a problematic concept in itself, with the idea that there are are rights the state owes us rather than duties we owe to each other. I think "human rights" are much better framed as universal obligations for each member of society to attain and exhibit a level of virtue that drives them to make decisions which create the "rights" we enjoy today. Trying to force everyone to recognize artificial rights enforced by the state is a losing game. Rights only exist in so far as the citizenry is virtuous enough to allow them.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The old governments were alot worse than even belgian colonial rule.

No they wernt. Personally I'd have gone for the Aztecs and the spanish if I'd have tried that one because Belgiums managed to create hell on earth.

I dont why you are talking about IQ now. The comparison isnt realy needed, the worst president in US history had kenyan genes and a afluent western upbringing and he almost turned the US into an african country.

Because you brought it up, I don't even like Obama and have a limited interest in presidential leaders and am aware how wrong you are on that one. He typically doesnt even make top 20 lists and considering the relatively short history of the Us that's quite a stretch

those beliefs werent constructed from thin air, they were constructed based on observation. Is the belief to be superior not natural if half naked people with spear charge into your maxim gun whenever you met them on the battlefield?

They were organically developed over time to rationalize breaching every moral code combined with various forms of quackery, it's simular to the Romans delusions on how their slaves arnt people or are somehow morally impure despite being patently absurd. Perhaps but isnt really how it genrally played out unless you've never read a history book in your entire life. Complex political struggles with multiple cultures over a 200 year period with multiple nation states with varying levels of technological sophistication gradually being eaten due to greed or realpolitik, plenty of historical cultures have stomped another one into the dirt, I doubt anyone is going to say the Mongols where the master race.

Then again the imperial societies wernt exactly the enlightended gentlesirs once you begin examing what they actually believe.

I got to know do you really envision the past as a Aryan ubermench bringing order and sanity to a load of guys in grass skirts who eat dung? All the little slaves happily toiling in masa's field? How do you actually envision the world out side of Europe before the modern world? How do you envision Europe prior to the 20th century?

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?

From a white point of view.

Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?

No because everyone suffers.

 

[Stoneheart]

He typically doesnt even make top 20 lists and considering the relatively short history of the Us that's quite a stretch

Lincoln was maybe worse, but he is always reduced to one big mistake and nobody realy cares what he did most of the time.

it's simular to the Romans delusions on how their slaves arnt people or are somehow morally impure despite being patently absurd.

The Romans had a very complex slavery system. some slaves were seen as people, but were just to valuable to be let go.

Complex political struggles with multiple cultures over a 200 year period with multiple nation states with varying levels of technological sophistication gradually being eaten due to greed or realpolitik, plenty of historical cultures have stomped another one into the dirt, I doubt anyone is going to say the Mongols where the master race.

400 years and every non european culture was stomped in that periode.

From a white point of view.

But thats evil Racism.

No because everyone suffers.

yes, but is it right to dictate your point of view? what should we do against the arabs who dont want to give rights to woman? or the chinese who dont belief in human rights? your idea is very much like the idea behind napoleons conquests, bring enlightenment to the unenligthened, with very force necessary.

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

But thats evil Racism.

Fuck people's feelings. They might be upset at first but they will happy in the long term. Non-whites will also stay in their countries and brain drain will plummet.

yes, but is it right to dictate your point of view? what should we do against the arabs who dont want to give rights to woman? or the chinese who dont belief in human rights? your idea is very much like the idea behind napoleons conquests, bring enlightenment to the unenligthened, with very force necessary.

We know that white's ethics are right because it's in the results. Arabic countries suffer from incest and lack of technological progress. The only thing that's keeping them afloat is the oil and nuclear power plants will ruin that. China has pollution, HIV, the coronavirus, and outdated medicine. White countries don't have any of these problems or they are minimal.

I prefer diplomacy but sometimes you need to do things with force. If you keep people in the dark, eventually they will hurt themselves.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Lincoln was maybe worse, but he is always reduced to one big mistake and nobody realy cares what he did most of the time.

Ah so we're just going of black people treatment now, as opposed to any actual meaningful assement of leadership. You know I'm begining to think your beliefs are just a pile of hockey bullshit about not liking black people

The Romans had a very complex slavery system. some slaves were seen as people, but were just to valuable to be let go.

okay...And?

400 years and every non european culture was stomped in that periode.

Well yes and it was an disaster were still reaping the fallout from.

I notice your getting really reductive in your replies-is it because your belief in morality based on a racial obligarchic border is undefendable?

 

[Stoneheart]

Fuck people's feelings. They might be upset at first but they will happy in the long term. Non-whites will also stay in their countries and brain drain will plummet.

Thats also Racist.

I prefer diplomacy but sometimes you need to do things with force. If you keep people in the dark, eventually they will hurt themselves.

but that evil colonialism...

Ah so we're just going of black people treatment now, as opposed to any actual meaningful assement of leadership. You know I'm begining to think your beliefs are just a pile of hockey bullshit about not liking black people

Lincoln went to war because some states wanted to leave the union. Thats the worst the US ever did...

also who talked about not liking black people? I like my dog, but i dont let him take part in the decision making.

I notice your getting really reductive in your replies-is it because your belief in morality based on a racial obligarchic border is undefendable?

You are the one who doesnt want to talk about the Topic at hand.
Is it right to force people from lesser cultures to accept human rights? how should we bring the human rights we developed in the west to region that dont want them? should or moral superiority override some of the rights of people who dont wanna adhere to human rights? Is it right to use force to bring human rights to democratic states that dont want them`?

 

[Urist Steelthrone]

but that evil colonialism...

Colonialism isn't really racist. Going to other people's lands and giving them technology is the opposite of racism. The gentler models are better because the people that you conquer won't use your past actions as an excuse for harming you. I don't think the majority of whites have ever been racist. They judge people by their actions. That's why they keep improving.

---

Every race needs eugenics because it's moral and natural. It improves the gene pool over time so less babies are born tards and have tard parents/families. When women select handsome men, they are guaranteed to have smarter and healthier babies.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You are the one who doesnt want to talk about the Topic at hand.
Is it right to force people from lesser cultures to accept human rights? how should we bring the human rights we developed in the west to region that dont want them? should or moral superiority override some of the rights of people who dont wanna adhere to human rights? Is it right to use force to bring human rights to democratic states that dont want them`?

others explored the question I was more interested in the fact we both know it's a rationale for a system which is morally inferior to either ours or the 'lesser' cultures but you answer your question-too simplistic and reliant on a false dichotomy nothing vs violence is a sloppy and lazy position, especially as you refered to catagorical imperative which would state both would be a moral failure . their are multiple options based on a case by case basis.