> The enlightenment was a European ideology. China is influenced still by Taoism

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.

>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...

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.

I'm not sure who/what you're replying to here. I wasn't making a moral judgement at all. I'm just correcting the GP suggesting that the Enlightenment is somehow a universal ideal (the way I read it), when that's far from the case. In fact there have been many ideologies even in Europe since then dealing with criticism of each former philosophical movement.

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.

> 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.

And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment? Humans have existed a lot longer than the Enlightenment and battled with ideals of morality throughout the ages. To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous.

> And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment

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?

No living creature enjoys suffering therefore do no action of intent which causes suffering to any other living thing. That's the One True Morality and every person can measure it for themselves because all of us is directly connected to suffering.

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.

Great! Which one is it?

Chinese leaders are likely more familiar with Western thought than the other way around.

I am an American that loves to read the Global Times sometimes because it often has brilliant pieces. Media like we use to have before the internet.

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.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted, because it is most likely true.

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.

Taoism is thousands of years old, vastly pre-dating the CCP and its actions.

I am very well aware that Taoism is thousands of years old. I have an undergraduate honors thesis on the confluence of Taoist traditional thought and Buddhist influences expressed in the Lieh Tzu. I have spent considerable energy trying to convince Western military fans of Sun Tzu to teach it in its proper context, such as by requiring reading Lao Tzu first. You can stop being condescending at any point.

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 being condescending at all. I’m not even sure what came off as condescending, but I apologize if it did.

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.