It was weird to be a pro-war Liberal

[bikerdruid]

Yes it can.

not reasonably....
ethnocentrism is so passe.

 

[Virus]

not reasonably....
ethnocentrism is so passe.

Rome:

Paved roads
Fresh water
Public baths
Indoor plumbing
Indoor heating
Books
Glass
Hydrolic mining
Cranes
Standardized military doctrine
Superior art
Superior architecture
An empire with a common language and currency
Greek philosophy and science

Top that.

 

[DC]

Hmmm, moral question…

We can all agree that invading and colonizing a democracy would generally be bad (as it would violate the self determination of the locals).

We can also agree that if an Empire has a colony that has the capacity to run itself as a democracy then the Empire should respect the wishes of the people of that colony regarding independence.


But what if the country being invaded/colonized wasn't a democracy but instead a mess of corrupt warring despotisms? Is it still immoral?

1) The locals right to self determination hasn't been infringed (they didn't have one before - only the local hereditary despots had any sovereignty)

2) The locals will have more/better law, prosperity, peace etc

(So far this could apply to Roman Britain or Gaul, the next one though is more with British India in mind)

3) When the local populace is ready for self rule, the occupying Empire respects that wish and vacates the premises.


Is that immoral? Why?

(Pretty sure I read in "1066 and all that" that the Roman occupation of Britain was viewed as a "good thing". Which seemed reasonable…)



Note - obviously some Empires and colonization is bad… the question is not "Can Imperialism/colonialism be bad?" (which is an obvious 'yes') but is it, when for a limited time, necessarily bad…

so it would be moral of Switzerland to invade Britain for example and brining those people the right to self determination

we have far more self determination than any other nation. So it would improve the rights of Brits. Under our constitution Scottland could become independent if they wanted.
sounds like a moral thing to so, no?

 

[DC]

Rome:

Paved roads
Fresh water
Public baths
Indoor plumbing
Indoor heating
Books
Glass
Hydrolic mining
Cranes
Standardized military doctrine
Superior art
Superior architecture
An empire with a common language and currency
Greek philosophy and science

Top that.

so everyone has to live the life you like to live?

 

[Giz]

so everyone has to live the life you like to live?

Are you contending that the tribal celtic groupings, with their endemic warfare and human sacrifice, can compete with the list of Roman benefits that Virus posted? That it's just two choices and reasonable people could disagree about which is best?

What next? Which is best: modern swiss culture, or that of the old aztecs? (Oooh, I dunno - can't really make those calls can we???)

 

[Giz]

so it would be moral of Switzerland to invade Britain for example and brining those people the right to self determination

They already have a kind of democracy so this completely fails to address my post... try again with a NON democracy

we have far more self determination than any other nation. So it would improve the rights of Brits. Under our constitution Scottland could become independent if they wanted.
sounds like a moral thing to so, no?

I didn't ask about it always being moral, but whether it was always immoral. You are trying to address the first (and failing, as I noted above) rather than arguing that it could never be moral.

 

[Giz]

the hundreds of druids massacred by roman forces at anglesey in 60ad, might disagree, for one minor example.

I cry myself to sleep over the druids of anglesey, and all the dead aztec priests of mesoamerica too... I find fanatics who practice human sacrifice so sympathetic! (and I'd certainly never regard burning people alive, or cutting out their still living hearts to be superior or inferior... just indiginous, and therefore immune to criticism)

 

[Crossbow]

Rome:

Paved roads
Fresh water
Public baths
Indoor plumbing
Indoor heating
Books
Glass
Hydrolic mining
Cranes
Standardized military doctrine
Superior art
Superior architecture
An empire with a common language and currency
Greek philosophy and science

Top that.

Wow! It sure is odd when reality appears like comedy.

In this case, has anyone else seen the Monty Python movie The Life of Brian?

 

[DC]

Are you contending that the tribal celtic groupings, with their endemic warfare and human sacrifice, can compete with the list of Roman benefits that Virus posted? That it's just two choices and reasonable people could disagree about which is best?

What next? Which is best: modern swiss culture, or that of the old aztecs? (Oooh, I dunno - can't really make those calls can we???)

well surely i love our way of life . but i do not expect to everyone wanting to live that way. others prefer another way of life. just because i believe our way is superior does not make it objectively superior.
its a question like, what is objectively the nicer color, blue or red?

 

[DC]

They already have a kind of democracy so this completely fails to address my post... try again with a NON democracy



I didn't ask about it always being moral, but whether it was always immoral. You are trying to address the first (and failing, as I noted above) rather than arguing that it could never be moral.

a sort of demoracy? Sadddam had also a sort of democracy.

taking away someones self determination is not moral even if they had non before. you are then just as immoral as those that took it away in the first place.

 

[Virus]

Surgical equipment
Cement
Public toilets
Standardized education
A standardized calender
A postal system
Habeas Corpus law
Civic representation
Courts of law
Theatre
Sport
Public libraries

 

[Virus]

a sort of demoracy? Sadddam had also a sort of democracy.

No he didn't.

taking away someones self determination is not moral even if they had non before. you are then just as immoral as those that took it away in the first place.

No it's not. Would you rather be colonized by the British or the Japanese during the 20th century?

Being ruled by a corrupt and brutal thug that happens to have the same skin colour isn't much of a self-determination. The radicals and Marxists championed this sort of nonsense only to usher in violent Communist and ultra-Nationalist tyrants that were worse than those they replaced.

 

[DC]

No he didn't.



No it's not. Would you rather be colonized by the British or the Japanese during the 20th century?

Being ruled by a corrupt and brutal thug that happens to have the same skin colour isn't much of a self-determination. The radicals and Marxists championed this sort of nonsense only to usher in violent Communist and Nationalist thugs that were worse than those they replaced.

So corrupt brutal thugs are fine aslong as they are like you. i see.
when you do it, its ok, when others do it its bad culture.

 

[DC]

and we dont care about corrupt and brutal thugs dictating countries as long they don't have something we want.

 

[Virus]

So corrupt brutal thugs are fine aslong as they are like you. i see.
when you do it, its ok, when others do it its bad culture.

It's about some things being better than other things.

You wouldn't understand the concept.

 

[DC]

It's about some things being better than other things.

You wouldn't understand the concept.

the Chinese brought railroads, proper roads schools etc to Tibet. Long live China.

 

[Giz]

a sort of demoracy? Sadddam had also a sort of democracy.

No, he didn't.

taking away someones self determination is not moral even if they had non before. you are then just as immoral as those that took it away in the first place.

You can't take away what someone doesn't have.

And what's better, living under just laws, or, living under a capricious tyrant who just so happens to have the same skin colour as you?

 

[DC]

No, he didn't.



You can't take away what someone doesn't have.

And what's better, living under just laws, or, living under a capricious tyrant who just so happens to have the same skin colour as you?

why is skin colour suddenly playing a role?

we talk about people, theyr skin colour has absolutely nothing to do with it.
it doesnt matter if green skined people force their way on other green skined people or on blue skined people. the point is some people force their way on other people that might not want it that way.

 

[Giz]

well surely i love our way of life . but i do not expect to everyone wanting to live that way. others prefer another way of life. just because i believe our way is superior does not make it objectively superior.
its a question like, what is objectively the nicer color, blue or red?

You don't criticize other cultures?

You wouldn't criticize womens rights in Saudi Arabia, or gay people being hanged in Iran? It's just what they prefer, right?

 

[Giz]

the Chinese brought railroads, proper roads schools etc to Tibet. Long live China.

Chinese rule was indeed an improvement for a time.

But now China should leave (just as British rule brought some benefits to India but after a while it was clearly time for Britain to leave)