Quote:
Originally Posted by HalveBlue
I vehemently disagree with the assertion that, "what we think is appropriate is entirely irrelevant". In fact, I think it's perhaps the most relevant thing of all.
By your logic, one could argue that we can't condemn the Holocaust because Nazi Germany was a different society?
While I can appreciate the moral relativist position that China is a vastly different country from the United States - with a deep and rich cultural, social, and political history of it own - and therefore has policies that do not mirror our own, it doesn't change the fact that I find the political and judicial policies of the current regime reprehensible.
In this case in particular I am dismayed that a human being was executed for an act that, in an of itself, harmed no one.
FWIW, as far as drug policy is concerned, I don't think U.S. laws are much better in some respects.
You missed my point. It doesn't really matter who the "barkeeper" is, or what he serves. Nor in which country he serves it.
At it's very foundation, the example I gave revolves around the following arguments:
- What entity or being has the right to determine what an individuals does with their body or what substances they choose to consume?
- On what basis do we assign moral superiority/acceptability of certain substances over others? Who decides this; and from where do they derive their authority?
I would say that first question is absurd because the answer is inherent: only the individuals themselves can choose.
The second is more complex. Although I would submit that as long as the use of the substance affects only the user, the user should be free to do what he wishes with the substance.
With that in mind, let me offer a simplified version of the example in my previous post:
-Person A offers to sell a product to Person B, without coercion.
-The product offered has the potential to both benefit and/or harm Person B.
-Essentially, Person A is offering Person B a choice: Buy the product, or do not buy the product.
Logically, Person B, is the only individual that can decide whether the potential benefit or harm of the product justifies its purchase.
On what grounds can we justify punishing Person A for offering Person B a choice?
Could you elaborate on this? Especially the last part in bold.
|
What I was saying that the legal system & ideals there in China are very different from the US system.
I'm just not interested when it comes to discussions about cross-cultural ethics.
imo, it's very personal & depends a lot of vague interpretation.
Did the executed guy in question harm anyone?
I think that's debateable.
Directly, probably not.
Indirectly, it is probable.
China thinks illicit drugs are harmful.
There is always the possibility that hard drugs can cause death.
China thinks the prolifertation of illicit drugs are harmful.
China, therefore imposes a set of penalties to discourage this.
The USA (and pretty much the vast majority of countries) do the same.
As Slider2828 mentioned,
China's history did include a particulary destructive period caused in part by the influx of Opium.
It's reasonable that China would go through measures to make sure this doesn't happen again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
To me, it's a reasonable policy.
However, it's not unthinkable that others may not find it reasonable.
Replace 'illicit drugs' with another illegal substace that can cause harm,
say rocket launchers, biochemical weapons, national security secrets, etc.
The same could reasonably apply.
Oh sure, everyone is totally free to condemn (or support) anything.
Just not everyone, always agrees what to condemn and what not to.
For instance, I don't condemn the death penalty,
and I don't condemn penalizing the distribution of hard drugs.
Ppl condemn the politicians in their own country every day.
Oh I agree it' absurd for governments to decide who can do what,
with regards to one's own body.
It's also hard at times to determine what's ought to be legal based on what substance (or anything really) is more harmful.
We can, and should voice our opinions.
In the USA, it makes sense to express our opinions.
We can vote, write to our politicians, use the media, etc
In China, it's all for nought as it's not the same polical system,
Public pressure, media pressure (thanks to censorship) don't acheive the same.
Ppl everywhere inside China, or outside have condemned it.
Economically it's changed.
Politically, it still runs with an iron fist.
It's not going to change anytime soon, most likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalveBlue
So which cultures can judge which other cultures? What are the guidelines you would propose we use?
|
Just about anyone can judge anything.
But so what?
Whether the party who expresses approval or dissaproval makes a difference, is another matter entirely.
I doubt any of us here would have much leverage over China's policies.
Im more interested in what's practical, rather than what's moral.