The clash of cultures

[Az]

We have a highly developed social expectation of how we address morality issues. Other cultures have their own means of addressing these as well. The majority of our allies share some common thoughts on legal systems and codes of conduct.

In our system when a crime is committed we expect people to put their emotions on hold to some extent and allow our legal systems to sort out what happened and apply whatever measures justice requires.

Some other cultures have not adopted this particular stance. Arab nations are still very much in a tribal mind set. The rule of law does not have as much meaning to some of them. They see failings in the system. It allows for bad people to sometimes get away with their crimes. They take a very real sense of personal responsibility in seeing justice done.

The call to vengence as a form of justice reverberates in our society as well. It is our system of laws and punishment that quell the individuals desire for revenge. But our system still entails revenge. There are still struggles on whether we should use the death penalty. There is far more emphasis on the punishment than on the rehabilitation of the individual. As if some how balancing the harm makes things better.

To a culture that has very clear definitions of how a grievance is supposed to be handled it is very difficult to expect them to just accept our system with all its problems and failings. They believe their system to be as good if not better than ours. It functions. It is part of an evolved set of codes and beliefs and it functions in their society. It may not meet our expectation of morality but right and wrong are not questions that evolutoinary systems ask. They only promote what works.

When the Magna Carta was signed we essentially interviened in the evolutionary path of our society. Like modern medicine freezing our species biological evolution by countering any mutations within our social structure came under our more directly studied control. We took responsibility for our path. No longer were we at the mercy of institutions that relied on evolutionary forces to adopt new understanding.

Our path to discover our current hard won moral understandings has not been easy. Realisation of heinous positions has caused great stress within our society. Its very balance pushed to the edge on occaisions. We still struggle to unlearn systems of behaviour that at one time worked to keep the society functional for some but now are seen as archaic beliefs.

It is this that we offer to another people. We expect them to see the truths we have found. We expect them to drop their social systems and welcome ours in gratitude. We expect them to see their ways as wrong and rush towards the wisdom of ours. We offer them freedom. They see it as oppression.

[Kolesar]

1. so I googled "Magna Carta" when I read this and came up with this...

Shredding the Magna Carta

The Bush Administration wants to rip up not just the Bill of Rights. It's going after the Magna Carta, too. It wants to do away with habeas corpus, the essential, 800-year-old right that allows the accused to appear before a judge and plead.

But the Bush Administration can't be bothered with that. The foreign enemy combatants it is holding in Guantánamo have no due process rights at all, according to the Justice Department.

And enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens, such as José Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, barely have any, either. They are not entitled to counsel, they are not entitled to appear in court in person, and they are not entitled to a speedy trial. In fact, they can be held indefinitely without charge.

What is stunning is how brazen and weak are the arguments the Bush Administration has put forward in these cases.
.......continued........
http://www.progressive.org/june04/comm0604.html

Yes, it is an aside to the fine essay that you wrote, but it was encouraging to know that several writers are referring to the Magna Carta when discussing the horrors of Abu Ghraib.

[bloom]

2. I believe this came up in the Supreme Court case

It is unbelieveable what they are doing to our society.

How far back they are taking us.

I think it's about 5000-6000 years.

[forgethell]

3. You have a highly optimistic

viewpoint of society 5000-6000 years ago. God-kings, temple prostitution, human sacrifice, especially of children, stoning for adultery, impalement, slavery, gladitorial games, burning at the stake. All were done then, and continued until a few hundred years ago, almost everywhere. Slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia until the 1960s. They still cut off hands for stealing. There were expert impalers in Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Sorry I don't have a link, but Goolgle "impalement" and you'll run across it.

At the very worst, * can take us back to 1954, which, bad as it was, was still much, much better than 5000 years ago.

[forgethell]

4. Hmmmmm

<<We have a highly developed social expectation of how we address morality issues. Other cultures have their own means of addressing these as well.

That would be stoning of women for adultery, cutting off the hands of thieves, slaughtering of hostages. Hey, there is very little crime, other than terrorism in some countries.



<<In our system when a crime is committed we expect people to put their emotions on hold to some extent and allow our legal systems to sort out what happened and apply whatever measures justice requires.

Some other cultures have not adopted this particular stance. Arab nations are still very much in a tribal mind set.

Maybe that's why they immigrate here, and we don't emigrate there. Just a thought, but perhaps we have a better, more workable, more just system of government than they do


<<The rule of law does not have as much meaning to some of them. They see failings in the system. It allows for bad people to sometimes get away with their crimes. They take a very real sense of personal responsibility in seeing justice done.

and we don't?? There are a lot of people still upset that OJ got away with murder because of a racist defense and a stupid jury. But that's the way our system works. A system of vengeance now, think Hatfields and McCoys. Innocent people die for generations for quarrels that no one can remember the origin of.

<<The call to vengeance as a form of justice reverberates in our society as well. It is our system of laws and punishment that quell the individuals desire for revenge. But our system still entails revenge. There are still struggles on whether we should use the death penalty. There is far more emphasis on the punishment than on the rehabilitation of the individual. As if some how balancing the harm makes things better.

Well, yeah, actually it does. But that is NOT the purpose. The true purpose of punishment, as opposed to revenge, is to make a statement about society's disapproval for whatever act it was. Another is to remove a dangerous individual from society so that he can no longer harm other individuals. Retribution would come in about 3rd place, in my estimation. Finally, when the other purposes had been fulfilled, rehabilitation is a good goal.

<<To a culture that has very clear definitions of how a grievance is supposed to be handled it is very difficult to expect them to just accept our system with all its problems and failings.

Very true. but they don't have to come here. And, they cannot expect us to allow ourselves to be slaughtered to satisfy their sense of justice.

<<They believe their system to be as good if not better than ours. It functions.

People will believe just about anything.

<<It is part of an evolved set of codes and beliefs and it functions in their society. It may not meet our expectation of morality but right and wrong are not questions that evolutionary systems ask. They only promote what works.

Now here I have a serious philosophical disagreement with you. Of course 'evolutionary' systems address questions of morality. Basically, if you do not believe that "God" revealed morality, then the only possible justification for it is that it works to keep society functioning. Please don't send links from some philosopher (there are some) who argues otherwise. I've read many of them, and have formed my opinion. In any event, to state that Islamic societies are not concerned with morality is just willful ignorance. Of course they are.


<<When the Magna Carta was signed we essentially intervened in the evolutionary path of our society.evolutionaryLike modern medicine freezing our species biological evolution by countering any mutations within our social structure came under our more directly studied control. We took responsibility for our path. No longer were we at the mercy of institutions that relied on evolutionary forces to adopt new understanding

I get it!! Other societies are just too damn dumb to intervene in the evolutionary growth of their own societies!! Why didn't I think of that before?? AZ: human beings have been intervening in their society, both technologically and morally, as well as legally, politically, etc., etc, at least since the discovery of fire, and the first time a man hung around after impregnating a woman.

<<Our path to discover our current hard won moral understandings has not been easy.

No, it hasn't been easy. but it can be easily destroyed. And, it is very, very precious.

<<Realisation of heinous positions has caused great stress within our society. Its very balance pushed to the edge on occaisions. We still struggle to unlearn systems of behaviour that at one time worked to keep the society functional for some but now are seen as archaic beliefs.

It is this that we offer to another people. We expect them to see the truths we have found. We expect them to drop their social systems and welcome ours in gratitude. We expect them to see their ways as wrong and rush towards the wisdom of ours. We offer them freedom. They see it as oppression.

What we expect is that they shall not attempt to kill us. if they want to live in their own tribal societies, and leave us alone, fine. They can do what they want to each other. It will be horrible. But if they want to join the modern world, and share in its benefits, they need to learn how to behave in the modern world. They can do this, lot's of peoples have. But the world will pass them by, and bit by bit they will join Tyrannosaurus rex, the woolly mammoth, and the dodo on the ash-heap of history. Not because the evil white man committed genocide, but because, evolutionarily, their societies could not compete. Or they can choose to make the evolutionary changes needed to compete.
:)

[noiretextatique]

5. a highly evolved...whatever

we still have A LOT of problems with our own system.