Which is worse ( from a moral standpoint ) ?

[aneeshm]

I wanted to ask this question for some time now , about what type of behaviour is worse on the part of nations/cultures .

Imagine that there is a culture which considers iteslf superior to all others ( at least , all others it has encountered so far ) . Currently , it is the strongest of all those it knows , and can , if it wants to , overwhelm the others .

Now there are two ways the given state can behave

a) It can try to "civilise" the others it considers inferior , the way the Europeans did
b) It can say , "Let them rot in their own s*** , why bother ourselves with the barbarians" , the thing India has practised whenever it was powerful .


Out of these , which is the more arrogant attitude ? And which is the better one ( when we consider both , the said state and the people it considers barbarians ) ?

[Cyclotron]

I should think there is a middle road between an arrogant "civilizing mission," as per colonialism, and complete apathy for the condition of other cultures. The black and white choice you give is inadequate.

[aneeshm]

There may well be such a middle path , but I want you to make a choice between the two I have given .

[C0ckney]

the european way, becasue frankly we are better than you.

[aneeshm]

@ C0ckney

What about the European way ? Is it better or is it worse ?



From now on , whenever someone answers with only "the apathy" or "imperialism" , it will mean they think that their answer is the one which they consider the worse of the two . And let us remember that I have posed two questions - a) Which is more arrogant , and b) Which is worse .

[Cyclotron]

Alright, if you want it one way or the other...

a) Neither is neccessarily more arrogant because arrogance is a state of mind. A country could be equally arrogant in pursuing either path.

b) It is worse to interfere, because humans are not smart and forward-thinking enough to effectively take on civilizing missions. Such missions fail because the "parent" country doesn't understand the depth of the changes they are making and the culture they are changing. Often, such missions turn into simple imperialism and greed, if they didn't start that way to begin with. It is preferential to let people solve problems themselves.

[binTravkin]

a) Neither is neccessarily more arrogant because arrogance is a state of mind. A country could be equally arrogant in pursuing either path.

b) It is worse to interfere, because humans are not smart and forward-thinking enough to effectively take on civilizing missions. Such missions fail because the "parent" country doesn't understand the depth of the changes they are making and the culture they are changing. Often, such missions turn into simple imperialism and greed, if they didn't start that way to begin with. It is preferential to let people solve problems themselves.

QFT

[CrONoS]

"So long as western people imagine that there only exists a single type of humanity, that there is only one 'civilization', at different stages of development, no mutual understanding will be possible. The truth is that there are many civilizations, developing along very different lines, and that, among these, that of the modern West is strangely exceptional, as some of its characteristics show."

"But most extraordinary of all is perhaps the claim to set up this abnormal civilization as the very type of all civilization, to regard it as Civilization with a capital letter, and even as the only one which deserves the name. Extraordinary too, and also complementary to this illusion, is the belief in "progress," considered no less absolutely, and naturally identified, at heart, with this material development which absorbs the entire activity of the modern West."

"In any case, what westeners call civilization, the others would call barbarity, because it is precisely lacking in the essential, that is to say a principle of a higher order."

- Excerpt from Rene Guenon

Along these lines:

I just want to add these things:
I really thing we can help other country, and we should at a certains times, make millitary intervention( or others) but as long as we dont want to civilizate the world... to destroy other god, other culture, other value. If we do that now I think we make it wrong.

[Zedd]

Quite right, and as a conservative American un-abashedly trying to spread my own ideas, I think the "west" focuses too much on imprinting our culture on others and not enough on passing down our heritage to our own children.

Preservation of self is the only way to ensure longevity.

[vomitus]

Re: Which is worse ( from a moral standpoint ) ?

Originally posted by aneeshm
I wanted to ask this question for some time now , about what type of behaviour is worse on the part of nations/cultures .

Imagine that there is a culture which considers iteslf superior to all others ( at least , all others it has encountered so far ) . Currently , it is the strongest of all those it knows , and can , if it wants to , overwhelm the others .

Now there are two ways the given state can behave

a) It can try to "civilise" the others it considers inferior , the way the Europeans did
b) It can say , "Let them rot in their own s*** , why bother ourselves with the barbarians" , the thing India has practised whenever it was powerful .


Out of these , which is the more arrogant attitude ? And which is the better one ( when we consider both , the said state and the people it considers barbarians ) ?

I'm going to agree with everyone else that your choices are too simple. The world and life in general aren't that simple.

[Mr. Harley]

Aneeshm - I personally prefer ignoring other cultures. It produces a more moral result for the surrounding people's. Unfortunately, you also get hose pesky Muslim or British Barbarians that when ignored ended up screwing those cultures that had ignored them. So the ignorance option is worst for the culture practicing it.

[SlowwHand]

) It can try to "civilise" the others it considers inferior , the way the Europeans did
b) It can say , "Let them rot in their own s*** , why bother ourselves with the barbarians" , the thing India has practised whenever it was powerful .

Live and let live makes "A" worse.


Out of these , which is the more arrogant attitude ? And which is the better one ( when we consider both , the said state and the people it considers barbarians ) ?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

OF the two option A is more arrogant.

Of the two the better for advancing the best interests of the world as it results in better parity of technology infrastrucutre etc. option A. Reference the Romans.

[lord of the mark]

European states didnt imperialize for the benefit of mankind, nor did they do so to be eevil SOBS. They did so because there were multiple European states, and imperializing (generally) created a survival advantage in the intra-European competition. So its not really a moral question, being determined by system considerations, not by any particular state.

In any case its questionalble whether it makes sense to judge states, esp pre-modern ones, on moral criteria. One can only ask whats ethical for an individual to do.

[Cyclotron]

Individual Europeans certainly gave moral reasons for imperialism along the way. Whether European states themselves imperialized for those reasons is debatable - especially since states are only the sum of their people.