Whether or not China recognizes human rights doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they are breaking them.
The international community recognizes human rights at least on some level, and it’s not particularly useful to use China’s perspective as a lens here any more than it would be useful to judge other atrocities throughout history through the eyes of the perpetrators.
Edit: Adding [0] for consideration as some responses seem unaware.
- [0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Yes, it is just a peace of paper, except that it is also not once it becomes something to fight for and something that people believe in.
The US declared itself independent while British troops were in the country. It asserted rights against somebody else who didn't recognize them.
And that worked well enough that later people would refer to those assertions when debating freeing the slaves, and it was that which MLK was able to refer to in his speech.
I won't live long enough to see international human rights become a norm and neither will anybody else alive right now. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important that we start creating the norm now.
There was a time that all of these were just "nice ideas" in the US
- Same sex marriage
- Women having the right to vote
- People of color having the right to freedom
- And on the list goes
Most of these rights were not enforced, or even recognized until people fought either with pens or with weapons and progress was made.
I linked to the UN's framework for this in my parent comment, and while I agree that this is an incredibly hard problem to address globally, we shouldn't discount the value and power of "nice ideas".
> Whether or not China recognizes human rights doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they are breaking them.
"Whether or not your country recognizes Sharia doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you are breaking it and you should be prosecuted for breaking it."
See how stupid your logic sounds when it is told from another perspective?
If you want to fight for something at least try to understand what makes you right and the other one wrong.
In US they are written into Constitution which is the law and which is source of these rights and basis for enforcing them.
"Human rights" are part of international law which is an agreement signed by multiple countries -- a form of law.
Not in the American tradition.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/rights-constitut...
Maybe our interest for humanism depleted when we had to get rid of fossil fuels because of climate change; at which point we noticed that humanism was only a pipe dream atop a fossil-dependent society, and coal had made our life much easier for a short period of time, until we fell into hard times again.
If there was a modern day nazi nation, that was genoiciding people en mass, that had nukes, such that invasion was impossible/mutually destructive, the answer would be the same.
Yes, sometimes it is difficult to stop all the bad things that evil people are doing. But that does not change the fact that those actions are still clearly evil and should be opposed where possible.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying its inevitable.
This sound like the "trial/judgement by combat", that the Gods will favor the guys with the "right" morals. My hope is that education/information in all camps would slowly but surely increase the global level of empathy,
That specific comment was made in the light of the statement 'even if you make a convincing argument for moral relativism'. At that point there is no longer a right or wrong, there is just "this exists" and "this does not exist".
The difference is that the other perspective is wrong, and ours is much closer to being correct (even if it still has problems).
So that is why your statement is silly.
And before you say it, no, I do not care about any of your arguments about cultural relativism.
I am perfectly happy, saying that people who, for example, want to kill gay people, have morals that are wrong, and that our morals, which are that we shouldn't do that, are correct.
Are you able to do that?
When China says "You know what, China? No. We will not break our own agreement. How could you even suggest that? Hong Kong is sovereign" (as the United States recently did in McGirt v. Oklahoma), then we can talk about whataboutism. Until then, that kind of argument is utterly unconvincing.
Always disappointing to see such vitriolic rebuttals to the mere idea of considering a Chinese perspective.
It is a cornerstone principle that all people everywhere have innate rights. The entirety of the Enlightenment is based on this idea. And while China may be actively involved in oppressing these rights domestically, it tacitly endorses them on the international stage.
Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better.
I think this is what the parent was trying to communicate. All humans may have certain inalienable rights, but not all humans fully understand the concept, let alone demand (or even desire) that their rights be respected.
It's kind of mindblowing to contemplate, but enlightenment thought has yet to deeply penetrate the mainland Chinese populace.
Simplified Chinese:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%E4%BA%BA%E6%9...
English:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=human+rights&y...
That claim appears to not be true. And since many Western concepts (like all the specialist communist terminology) made their way to Chinese through Japanese words using Chinese characters, if it _were_ true it would seem like it'd imply something about Japan too. Japanese uses a word with the same characters but I couldn't run down a good citation of the first dates all of these appeared besides the ngrams.
Your choices are (a) moral relativism, or (b) all humans are despicable. Choose wisely.
Half the point of civilization is accepting the fact we're all terrible people ready to stab each other in the back to get ahead and deciding not to do so so we can actually take a shot at building something great.
And honestly, that's a trick question, because one is a subset of the other. Despicable people being a superset of moral relativists.
That doesn't mean one isn't morally right and one isn't morally wrong.
If you want a hint for which one is which: one asserts that every living person has basic human rights. The other has frequent videos of people ignoring people who are dying, are currently destroying an indigenous population in concentration camps, and when a novel virus broke out, first shut up scientists trying to get the news out, then underplayed it, and then as it started spreading saw citizens weld shut doors of people suspected of having that virus.
A big argument I see by Chinese nationalists online, which I think carries validity, is that Western governments who enshrine human rights and democracy in their constitutions throw their weight behind horrific dictators that support their business interests and suppress democratic movements that don't.
Basically, Western governments aren't more moral than China; just more constrained by our institutions.
Regarding the lack of good samaritanism in China, this is a recent thing stemming from a 2000s legal case where a man was sued after taking an injured girl to hospital. Most Chinese, especially the older ones, find this aspect of their culture abhorrent and there are active campaigns against it in several cities.
Meanwhile it's undeniable that Taoism is a major cultural cornerstone of China and very much affects how the state and its population are related. Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity.
The existence of other frameworks of morality doesn't mean that there isn't one True Morality. It just means that some people act against it.
Probably not, because anything human will only be an approximation. It's probably a whole damn closer than the Chinese morality though.
> To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous. Why? In science we accept that there's one true way that any process can be described. Others might be entirely wrong (theory of Humors), or partially wrong, but useful (Newtonian physics). Why is the notion that there's on true moral framework so outlandish?
It's not pompous, it's reasonable, as in it's a deduction that anyone can make for themselves with the reason they have, applied to the vessel they were born with.
Chinese leaders might even understand America better than we understand ourselves.
I had just read an op ed the other day how America has no strategic thinkers in positions of power at this point. Someone like Kissinger. I don't even know how to argue with that because we don't. We don't even have the political will to want someone like that. We want a circus. China can see this, we are basically blind to it.
Focus in Western civilization shifted to trivia. We are spending all our effort deciding whether or not to take vaccines rather than deal with this problem efficiently and talk about really important problems like, you know, future of our civilization.
Your argument appears to be that modern Chinese actions should not be judged against the rubrics of Western philosophy. I disagree because I do not believe in moral relativism. However, if their actions are to be judged only against the rubrics found in, e.g., Taoism, then judge them against those rubrics.
Do you have anything approaching a good faith argument that the actions of China with regard to Uyghurs, Tibet, greater Guangdong (including HK), or any of the countless ethnic or political minorities in China comport with an ideal of harmony?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to debate here. I’m replying to the idea of a universal set of human rights, and that somehow the enlightenment is relevant to this globally, and that “moral relativism is lazy.” So I bring up that the enlightenment is specific to a set of cultures versus being globally accepted, and even within those cultures, there have been many philosophical movements since. Thus there isn’t some universal way that humans think about each other, or actions onto each other, and most importantly, China has been influenced by a different set of ideals that are thousands of years old.
You then bring up abhorrant behavior of current CCP, when in fact I’m talking about something more timeless - ideals. Atrocities have been committed worldwide under just about every philosophical guidance, including those who have been influenced by Enlightenment. Philosophy and religion can always be twisted to suit the needs of whoever is in power, and the majority/base from which they pull their power.
That's quite a strong statement about a theory taken seriously by a number of moral philosophers.
More like if Iran agreed not to invade Canada, invaded it, and implemented Sharia law.
China is not the victim here.
We are used to living in countries where people have rights. We have constitutions which guarantee citizen these rights and make the governments subservient to the population. Our government is elected by the people directly or indirectly and technically works for us.
This is not the case with China. In China, people have no innate rights. Any rights they have, are given by the ruling body, whether it is an emperor or its continuation, the CCP.
For China, what they are doing in Hong Kong is completely normal. They have been doing the same to their own mainland population for thousands of years and the changeovers from monarchy to communist party is basically cosmetic.
China does not recognize Human Rights and so it is difficult to say they are "breaking" them.
It is a construct we made for ourselves in countries that technically the people are governing themselves (ie democracies).
This is an abstract concept in China. Just as if Iran started accusing Canada of breaking Sharia.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not absolving China of the crimes they are committing. Just because something is legal in China doesn't mean it is not a crime. We can and we should react to this and try to bring basic rights to Chinese people.
But it is much more complex and delicate problem than people try to make it.