Poll: Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?

[Helmholtz Watson]

Ok Escapist community, this is a two part question, the first on justification for cultural imperialism and the second on the different views of morality.

First issue:
Now I just finished reading an article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16092694] on Malawi law that bands homosexuals and one particular section of the article made me feel uneasy. It stated that,

"On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would use foreign aid to encourage countries to decriminalise homosexuality. UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a similar view in October, saying that gay rights were a human right."

The article later went on to state that "Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, where they are often viewed as un-Christian and un-Islamic" and the President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, called homosexuality "evil and very bad before the eyes of God".

I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, because while I don't think it should considered a criminal act, I am also uncomfortable with the reactions I see from the Western political leaders, the reason being is that their attempts to manipulate the laws in Malawai on homosexuality come off as a subtle form of cultural imperialism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism#Ideas_relating_to_African_colonization]. What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

Here a few other articles about other African countries against homosexuality and how the West is responding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15558769

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15992099

Second Issue:
When I read the article on Malawai, it made me think of another question on morality, does Moral Universalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism] exist, or does Moral Relativism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism] exist? I bring this up because, I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed and that it is wrong to do otherwise, and I think that if I was to believe in Moral Universalism, then I would also feel that it is wrong for those African countries to have such a law. However, if I subscribe to the idea that Moral Relativism exist, then while I might not agree with such laws, I guess I would feel that those laws were just a reflection of the morals of the various African cultures and not automatically "wrong". Tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel about the African laws if I followed the idea of Moral Nihilism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism].Articles such as these [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937] give me the impression that Western leaders believe in the idea of Moral Universalism, but what about you? People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.

 

[See Spot Run]

People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

 

[MrTub]

I got to agree with See spot run.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

People in several african nations are being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

far enough, but what about when it doesn't involve such extreme forms of punishment? Would you also be in favor of Western nations if they tried to manipulate Saudi Arabia to change their laws on prohibiting women from driving? Or would you feel that, regardless of what your culture might say, they also have a right to practice their own culture and enforce such laws?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I got to agree with See spot run.

what's your feelings on Morality? Universalism, Relativism, or Nihilism?

 

[LetalisK]

"Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?"

Well, it depends. Manipulating another country so that you can exploit their natural resources and just generally take a shit on them? Generally bad. Manipulating another country so that they stop acting like total dicks to a minority? Not necessarily. And given the fact that the "manipulation" in this case is whether or not the US is going to give aid, something it doesn't have to give in the first place and no other country is entitled to, it's not inherently bad.

Yes it's Cultural Imperialism(which is something that is not inherently bad) and I believe in something like (non-absolutist) Moral Universalism with some Moral Nihilism mixed in.

Now to wait for someone who merely thinks they're a Moral Relativist as opposed to actually being a Moral Relativist to come in and decry this as immoral. I will vomit blood.

Edit: I'll answer the question too.

far enough, but what about when it doesn't involve such extreme forms of punishment? Would you also be in favor of Western nations if they tried to manipulate Saudi Arabia to change their laws on prohibiting women from driving? Or would you feel that, regardless of what your culture might say, they also have a right to practice their own culture and enforce such laws?

Both. I would support it and Saudi Arabia does have a certain "right" to govern how they wish to and continue to oppress women in this way, but the Western World gets to exercise their "right" not to support them.

 

[MrTub]

I got to agree with See spot run.

what's your feelings on Morality? Universalism, Relativism, or Nihilism?

Honestly I see morality as a byproduct of culture and common sense since *Example* if you have a society which its alright to kill somebody then more people will die so it's in most of the peoples interest to have a society where violence is something negative. I have no problem with "west" forcing other countries to behave a certain way if they want fundings, the same way I guess most would not have any problem with forcing nazi germany to stop use their deathcamps.
and I know I did a godwin and for that I'm sorry.
Culture/tradition is never an excuse for somebody to do horrible things to another person/animal.

 

[See Spot Run]

People in several african nations are being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

far enough, but what about when it doesn't involve such extreme forms of punishment? Would you also be in favor of Western nations if they tried to manipulate Saudi Arabia to change their laws on prohibiting women from driving? Or would you feel that, regardless of what your culture might say, they also have a right to practice their own culture and enforce such laws?

Ok, getting into the discussion at hand:

I don't believe that morality is strictly relativistic. Nor do I believe that it is strictly universal. Morality is underlied by several universal pro-social orientations that are evolutionary in nature, and which are extrapolated by societies to create moral systems that are culturally informed.

As such, I think we can make judgements with regard to whether systems of morality are better or worse than others, by identifiying the underlying behavioral roots of moral rules, and assessing how implementing various moral interpretations of those behaviors affects a society. Basic reason dictates that, globally, we should strive to employ moral rules that we can judge to be "better".

I would argue that the systematic opression of a class of people is objectively morally worse than the treatment of all classes of people equally.

I think it would be much harder to justify, say, a military action to prevent the Saudis from opressing women, than it would be to justify overturning the ugandan government to stop the execution of persecuted gays. I think it is at least reasonably defensible, if not demonstrable, that the moral rules the west employ pertaining to these scenarios(and numerous other human rights issues, for that matter) are "better" than those being employed in Uganda and Saudi Arabia. To at least some extent, I feel that there is justification for requiring these nations to employ more advanced moral considerations - by force if necessary.

 

[BrassButtons]

What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

Another way of looking at this is: do Western Nations have a right to choose whether their aid money is going to countries whose values they find reprehensible? The answer is "yes", for the same reason you have a right to choose not to give money to organizations that are responsible for slavery, rape, or anything else you find morally wrong.

People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

Universalism.

 

[See Spot Run]

Universal morality or whatever: Huh? The fuck you talkin' bout? I honestly have no clue. I will say that nobody's moral compass points true, and no living soul has a perfectly tuned one.

Maybe take a moral philosophy course.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Should gays be deemed criminals simply because they're gay? Fuck no, and anyone who thinks they should be is no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Universal morality or whatever: Huh? The fuck you talkin' bout? I honestly have no clue. I will say that nobody's moral compass points true, and no living soul has a perfectly tuned one.

-_- .....that's why I provided links to Moral Universalism/Relativism/Nihilism. Seriously I did most of the work for you, all you have to do is click on the blue words, ok?

 

[BrassButtons]

Should gays be deemed criminals simply because they're gay? Fuck no, and anyone who thinks they should be is no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Universal morality or whatever: Huh? The fuck you talkin' bout? I honestly have no clue. I will say that nobody's moral compass points true, and no living soul has a perfectly tuned one.

If "nobody's moral compass points true" then why do you think someone who thinks gays should be deemed criminals is no better than Hitler or Stalin? You can't have any reason to think criminalizing gays is immoral, or that Hitler and Stalin were immoral, because you don't have a moral compass that "points true."

 

[Muspelheim]

If it's imperialism to view such legislation as backwards, primitive and detrimental to mankind and protest against it, then I will gladly be a sneering imperialist.

Spoiler

LetalisK more or less said exactly what I had to say, actually. Have a muffin, sir!

 

[Crazy]

Criminalizing homosexuality is like criminalizing Christianity. But, with Christianity you have a choice in the matter, with homosexuality more than likely you won't have a choice.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Coming from a country where some states still have sodomy & sexual preference/position laws on the books it's a pretty big kick in the nuts to it's own citizens but I digress.

Morality is relative.

This guy hit's the nail on the head.

People in several african nations are being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.

far enough, but what about when it doesn't involve such extreme forms of punishment? Would you also be in favor of Western nations if they tried to manipulate Saudi Arabia to change their laws on prohibiting women from driving? Or would you feel that, regardless of what your culture might say, they also have a right to practice their own culture and enforce such laws?

Ok, getting into the discussion at hand:

I don't believe that morality is strictly relativistic. Nor do I believe that it is strictly universal. Morality is underlied by several universal pro-social orientations that are evolutionary in nature, and which are extrapolated by societies to create moral systems that are culturally informed.

As such, I think we can make judgements with regard to whether systems of morality are better or worse than others, by identifiying the underlying behavioral roots of moral rules, and assessing how implementing various moral interpretations of those behaviors affects a society. Basic reason dictates that, globally, we should strive to employ moral rules that we can judge to be "better".

I would argue that the systematic opression of a class of people is objectively morally worse than the treatment of all classes of people equally.

I think it would be much harder to justify, say, a military action to prevent the Saudis from opressing women, than it would be to justify overturning the ugandan government to stop the execution of persecuted gays. I think it is at least reasonably defensible, if not demonstrable, that the moral rules the west employ pertaining to these scenarios(and numerous other human rights issues, for that matter) are "better" than those being employed in Uganda and Saudi Arabia. To at least some extent, I feel that there is justification for requiring these nations to employ more advanced moral considerations - by force if necessary.

 

[Aiedail256]

It's CI, but easily permissible in this case. As others have said, CI is not inherently bad. My moral code is Utilitarianism [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism], and I'm pretty sure that that presupposes MU at least in theory. However, precisely calculating the effect of an action on the "happiness" of all people in existence is and probably always will be impossible (plus we I don't think we even know how to precisely define "happiness" in this context), so at some level it doesn't matter whether the truth is a mixture of MU and MR or pure MU.

Sort of off-topic, I don't understand how MN can exist at all, since morality just means a system by which you label actions as encouraged, discouraged, and neutral. Is it not the case, then, that MN claims that nobody in the world has a moral code? Or does it merely claim that the creation of moral codes is a pointless exercise? Or am I on a completely wrong track?

Honestly I see morality as a byproduct of culture and common sense

Although "common sense" is a poor term to use there due to its vagueness, I agree that morality is a human invention rather than Platonic [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism], as some proponents of MU doubtless believe.

Should gays be deemed criminals simply because they're gay? Fuck no, and anyone who thinks they should be is no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Universal morality or whatever: Huh? The fuck you talkin' bout? I honestly have no clue. I will say that nobody's moral compass points true, and no living soul has a perfectly tuned one.

If "nobody's moral compass points true" then why do you think someone who thinks gays should be deemed criminals is no better than Hitler or Stalin? You can't have any reason to think criminalizing gays is immoral, or that Hitler and Stalin were immoral, because you don't have a moral compass that "points true."

I think TestECull means that many people's compasses are at least good enough to know that Hitler was evil, but there are certain questions, like maybe the trolley problem [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem], that nobody's is good enough to answer definitively.

 

[MrTub]

It's CI, but easily permissible in this case. As others have said, CI is not inherently bad. My moral code is Utilitarianism [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism], and I'm pretty sure that that presupposes MU at least in theory. However, precisely calculating the effect of an action on the "happiness" of all people in existence is and probably always will be impossible (plus we I don't think we even know how to precisely define "happiness" in this context), so at some level it doesn't matter whether the truth is a mixture of MU and MR or pure MU.

Sort of off-topic, I don't understand how MN can exist at all, since morality just means a system by which you label actions as encouraged, discouraged, and neutral. Is it not the case, then, that MN claims that nobody in the world has a moral code? Or does it merely claim that the creation of moral codes is a pointless exercise? Or am I on a completely wrong track?

Honestly I see morality as a byproduct of culture and common sense

Although "common sense" is a poor term to use there due to its vagueness, I agree that morality is a human invention rather than Platonic [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism], as some proponents of MU doubtless believe.

Should gays be deemed criminals simply because they're gay? Fuck no, and anyone who thinks they should be is no better than Hitler or Stalin.

Universal morality or whatever: Huh? The fuck you talkin' bout? I honestly have no clue. I will say that nobody's moral compass points true, and no living soul has a perfectly tuned one.

If "nobody's moral compass points true" then why do you think someone who thinks gays should be deemed criminals is no better than Hitler or Stalin? You can't have any reason to think criminalizing gays is immoral, or that Hitler and Stalin were immoral, because you don't have a moral compass that "points true."

I think TestECull means that many people's compasses are at least good enough to know that Hitler was evil, but there are certain questions, like maybe the trolley problem [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem], that nobody's is good enough to answer definitively.

Well the whole problem that I have with morality is just that is so vague since nobody will completely share somebody else morality "compass" so what I meant with common sense is that what the culture feels should be obviously a bad thing/good thing but I guess there are better ways to describe it

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

snip

snip

For the record, I do agree with most of what you typed. However, you state that "the systematic opression of a class of people is objectively morally worse than the treatment of all classes of people equally" and that "the moral rules the west employ pertaining to these scenarios (and numerous other human rights issues, for that matter) are "better"", but can we really say that our stance on ALL human rights issues are "better"? Just look at the various western nations also have laws that restrict expression/speech (see: hate speech laws/holocaust denial laws & this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.335600-Freedom-of-speech-destroyed-Islam-protected]). As a American (and a Jewish person who's grandparents were in the holocaust) I'm taken back by laws that outlaw a person from stating that they don't think the Holocaust happened, because (imo) I think people should have a right to express their opinion, regardless of whether or not it is popular. I think Christopher Hitchen's said it best when he stated that...

(click the quote below and go to 3:46 to see what I'm referring to)

Spoiler: if everybody in North America if forced to attend school, training in sensitivity and holocaust awareness, and is taught to study the final solution. About which nothing was actually done by this country(Canada) or North America or the United Kingdom while it was going on. But lets say that as if in compensation for that, every one is made to swallow an official and an unalterable story of it now, and is taught as the great moral exemplar, the moral equivalent of the morally lacking elements of the second world war. The way of stilling our uneasy conscious about that combat. If that is the case with everybody, as it more or less is. And one person gets up and says, you know what? This holocaust, Im not sure it even happened. In fact, Im pretty certain it didnt. Indeed, I begin to wonder is the jews brought up a little bit of violence upon themselves. That person doesnt just have a right to speak, that persons right to speak must be given extra protection, because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might be, might contain a grain of historical truth. Might in any case, give people to think, why do they know what they already think they know? How do I know I know this except that Ive always been told this and never heard anything else. (...) Dont take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that what ever you think, your bound to be ok because your in the safely moral majority.

I'm starting to go a little off topic, but my point is that I don't think the West can claim to be "better" on all forms of human rights, given the fact that even various governments in the West suppresses opinions that are unpopular.

 

[See Spot Run]

I'm starting to go a little off topic, but my point is that I don't think the West can claim to be "better" on all forms of human rights, given the fact that even various governments in the West suppresses opinions that are unpopular.

I didn't say "all forms of human rights" I said "numerous human rights issues". I also said we're morally "better" I didn't say we were morally "perfect" or even "best".