Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If all criteria of judgement are relative to the individuals and situations involved, then the judgement of right and wrong can change depending on the people involved in the situation. In other words, right or wrong can change from society to society and culture to culture because the people doing the judging are changing.
|
This doesn't mean that an individual cannot be a relativist and conclude that a particular action is right or wrong. You are taking a very simplistic view of the definition. If I look at a situation, balance the relative good and evil involved in taking action one way or another, then that is also relativism.
Quote:
|
People do not have a right to be unjust. Societies do not have right to act immorally. There is nothing wrong with enforcing justice. When you spread justice you are not violating anyone's rights.
|
The problem with this view is twofold. First, you claim the power to determine unilaterally what is and what is not just. Second, you then argue that it is always acceptable to act with force to compel people to follow your view of what is just.
If you are correct, and what you espouse is moral or just, then, since your code is universal, people will choose to conform their society to act in the way you are advocating. If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are universal human rights (which, incidentally, I also believe they are) then we cannot deprive people of their liberty in the guise of bringing to them our interpretation of democracy. Persuasion is acceptable, economic incentives are acceptable, but orce is not always acceptable.
Quote:
I don't have any problem with using undemocratic methods to bring democracy to a country. I think this is in line with the universal moral code. Why would using undemocratic methods to bring a democracy be a problem?
In the moral code I believe in, there is a time in place for violence, killing and coercion. Sometimes all three of these things are a moral imperative. You are assuming that if there is a moral code that it has to be some pacifistic code that eschews all violence etc. I don't think the universal moral code is even close to the pacifistic one that someone like Ghandi envisions.
|
Why would using undemocratic methods to to bring democracy be a problem? Perhaps because it is undemocratic? Perhaps because if you need to use force to implement it it isn't so universal?
I am not assuimng that a universal moral code has to be pacifist. I am suggesting that it is logically impossible to say the democracy is a universally moral virtue and then assert that it is not a violation of that code to deny people the right to self-determination.
