fibokbv wrote:
Mr. Smithers wrote:"Every country is free to define its own version of basic rights. "
Based on that statement it appears you are taking a position of societal moral relativism. I.e. that a type of action is morally right relative to a society if it is deemed right by the majority of members of that society.
Is that your position?
I have no position. I was only pointing out that flaw in your argument. And that wasn't my statement. You left out an entire sentence.
Here are your statements:
"There is no such thing as human rights. Every country is free to define its own version of basic rights"
"I said there's no such thing as human rights. Every country is free to define its own version of basic rights. I didn't say anything about what I support or find to be OK."
Those statements are aligned with a moral relavist point of view. A moral relavist argues that morality is relative to a culture and there is no moral position outside of cultures. For example, Culture A decides genocide is immmoral. Culture B decides genocide is moral. A moral relavist would argue that within Culture A, genocide IS immoral and within Culture B genocide IS moral. There is no moral position outside of these cultures. In contrast, a moral objectivist argues that there IS a moral position outside of these cultures: genocide is immoral regardless of the culture it resides.
Again, your statements are aligned with a cultural relativist point of view. If you do indeed stand by those views, you have several major delemas as a moral relativist.
First, a moral relatist never wants to conceed a country's sovereignty. You clearly argue for sovereignty by stating: "There is no such thing as human rights. Every country is free to define its own version of basic rights". In doing so, you argue that sovereignty is a moral standard across cultures. That is inconsistent with your previous moral relativist views. Why should sovereignty be a moral right across cultures, wheras all other moral rights be determined within the culture? Why assign sovereignty an absolute right, yet place genocide as a relative right?
Second, a moral relavist holds onto to tolerance for cultures we disagree. Similar to above, you are granting tolerance a moral standard, which is inconsistent with your moral relativist views.
Moral relavitists must defend why the give sovereignty and tolerance moral standards, yet all other moral considerations are culturally relative.
Those are the major delemmas of the moral relativist. Other delemmas are listed below.
Third, you defend the right of a country's autonomy, yet do not address the right of automony that is denied amoung individuals within that culture. If you argue autonomy is a basic right, then it is problematic that individuals are being denied autonomy. If you argue "majority rules", that sets you up for your fourth delemma. . .
Fourth, again you state: "There is no such thing as human rights. Every country is free to define its own version of basic rights". Countries define rights based either on majority view or a powerful minority. By stating that morality is relative to the culture, you are placing morality to the majority or a powerful minority. That is Gandhi did not hold the moral view. MLK did not hold the moral view. Nelson Mandela did not hold the moral view. A problem with moral relativism is that the world's moral heroes are contrary to common sense. To a moral relativist, Apartheid is moral and Hitler held the moral view.
I believe moral objectivists have a stronger view. And I encourage you to reexamine your views and consider that of a moral objectivist. In this case of Russian and homosexuality, a moral objectivists may give moral standards for a country's autonomy, an individual's autonomy, as well as for an individual to experience love and to flourish. A moral objectivist can have a moral hierarchy. For example, a moral objectivist would acknowledge there are several moral considerations here and may argue that the country's sovereignty trumps the individual's autonomy and flourishing. However, that does not mean s/he would remain silent and tolerate the lesser immorality. S/he may take a moderate stand a speak out against the immorality (rather than more forceful methods to overturn the immorality).
Personally, I place moral standards on both a country's autonomy as well as an individual's autonomy and flourishing. In this case, I would place slightly more weight to the individuals in Russia being denied this moral standard vs. Russia's autonomy to enact draconian laws. I believe there are much more egregious violations of moral standards in the world such as human trafficking and genocide that should be a higher priority.
By the way, I don't consider this a "debate". I consider it a discussion.