> right and wrong, good and evil are human judgments
This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.
> The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest.
If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower.
> One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.
This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?
> This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.
Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? There is only human conscience, and powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience.
> If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower.
If there’s an international institution that can enforce rules, then that institution is the capricious superpower, and woe betide those that mess with that institution.
> Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad?
Mankind has reached a point where it realized that certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws of nature. We're still not at a point where we fully understand the "moral laws of nature" (e.g. I suspect if we stick around as a species we will end up extending more rights to certain other species), but we're improving (at least on paper).
> powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience
Again an attitude that can be used to justify anything. If the powerful people decide it's ok to have slaves? Or that a certain ethnicity should be cleared off the face of the earth?
Luckily, post WW2 we have established international institutions (the UN for one) that at least on paper provide legal underpinning for what the right rules should be and for how they should be enforced.
> If there’s an international institution that can enforce rules, then that institution is the capricious superpower, and woe betide those that mess with that institution.
This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw such threats around casually I suspect you might be a US citizen. I can assure you that to the rest of us seeing this kind of attitude coming from your political/economic/intellectual leaders can be a very scary thing indeed.
> This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw such threats around casually I suspect you might be a US citizen.
Take many deep breaths and cool your jets. Think about your biases - it’s not good to go through life hating an entire nation and it says more about you than about them.
I am not American.
If you actually do want to explore this topic, read On The Genealogy Of Morality by Nietzsche.
> Mankind has reached a point where it realized that certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws of nature.
It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad in accordance with this one moral system. And most of humanity does not.
> Again an attitude that can be used to justify anything.
Of course, but only if its in their interest to do so like slavery, or if they believe it's in their interest to do so like committing genocide.
Have you noticed that slavery and genocide have actually never stopped in the world? Because they can do it and nobody can really stop them. See China's actions on the Uyghurs.
> This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw such threats around casually I suspect you might be a US citizen. I can assure you that to the rest of us seeing this kind of attitude coming from your political/economic/intellectual leaders can be a very scary thing indeed.
You should address the factuality of the statement instead of bordering on an ad hominem. Every hegemonic power in history have exhibited the same characteristics: securing its interests. European powers have done it. Asian powers have done it and are currently trying to do it (China). Americas, Africa, and Middle East too.
> It's a moral system just like how Big Judge in Sky is a moral system. You're only determining what's good and bad in accordance with this one moral system. And most of humanity does not.
Well, at the very least "Big Judge in Sky" is not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so there's that.
The fact that most of humanity most of the time fails short of our best understanding of morality doesn't mean that that understanding is a relative cultural construct. To make a parallel, even if all of humanity believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that still wouldn't matter one bit. The Earth would still do its thing. It's kind of like that with morality too.
It was wrong to have slaves even when having slaves was accepted. It was wrong to rape and pillage even when that was the norm in conquest etc.
> You should address the factuality of the statement instead of bordering on an ad hominem.
It's possible I misunderstood parent's intent. I actually took this part "woe betide those that mess with that institution" to mean smth like "don't you dare mess with the US". That would be an out of place, over the top threat. If I misunderstood the intent I'm sorry.
> Every hegemonic power in history have exhibited the same characteristics: securing its interests.
I don't disagree with you on this one (at least if by "its interests" we understand: "the interests of that nation's ruling elite"). It doesn't however mean that that's morally right. It is entirely possible that all hegemonic powers are acting immorally all the time.
I think they meant that if anyone had the power to protect people's rights, they would also have the power to violate people's rights, and they would use that power in the same way as today's rights violators. If so, I think they are absolutely right on that point, and it holds true regardless of what you believe those rights are.
I certainly think some things are inherently wrong, but doing those things are not any more difficult than doing other things, and it's probably easier to do them than it is to prevent them. We can't rely on an organization or institution to protect us because any such group will always promote and protect each other first. Instead, we need to promote a culture of direct action on an individual level, praise and encourage whistleblowers, activists, saboteurs and others who do what they think is right to weaken the power of institutions over individuals. We won't always agree with their goals, judgement, and morals, but as long as they don't use methods that are unequivocally wrong (such as violence against non-violent people), we should support them because individual action is in aggregate much better (and much less dangerous) than institutional actions.
This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity.
> The international rules-based order is safeguarded by powerful entities… because it’s in their best interest.
If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single capricious superpower.
> One goes against that self-interest at one’s peril.
This one eludes me. Who's going against who's interest?