The vast majority of philosophers don't believe in moral relativism. It's actually usually the amateurs early mistake and you can read alot of the critique of it easily online.
I wouldn't trust most philosophers' judgment on the matter at all unless they were also deeply familiar with evolutionary biology and game theory. I suspect most of them are not. I'd much prefer Richard Dawkins' opinion on the matter.
The vast majority of philosophers believed that men were superior to woman and that those of lighter skin were superior to those of darker skin and in general that philosophers were superior to anyone who was not a philosopher. They either didn’t spend time debating this because they all agreed, or in cases where they did, their arguments are not hovered in teaching material because we “want to focus on the pats that are actually true”.
> The vast majority of philosophers believed that (...) those of lighter skin were superior to those of darker skin
Source? We don't know the actual skin tone of Ancient philosophers, but it's likely that Greek and Roman philosophers (many of which were born in and lived in Middle East or Africa) were of darker skin than the Germanic barbarians, whom they considered inferior.
That’s true. And how the Saudis choose to run their society is none of America’s business. The feeling that America is intruding into their societies is in fact a huge source of anger in the Muslim world.
But nothing about the principle that societies are entitled to decide for themselves how to govern themselves requires people in America to accept Americans doing business with other people who have very different values. That’s a completely different matter.
That would be fine if we didn’t selectively pick which countries we apply those rules to. China is an ethical nightmare but we have and continue to do business with them, why change that when it comes to the Middle East.
What makes you think people who disapprove of getting in bed with the Middle East approve of getting in bed with China? Did you ask them? Or did you want so badly to accuse them of hypocrisy that you simply assumed it to be the case?
There's no people who deny travel reimbursements that use Saudi gas.. Does that mean we all need to fly to Saudi Arabia to plan future businesses and garrison death squads in our houses?
I think there's a difference between doing the minimum that is not a disadvantage and making a relationship with an ethical discount country your competitive advantage.
And if a societal model causes catastrophe and collapse it contains that failure? If it wastes human potential and is a free loader compared to free societies? What then?
Justifying the beheading done there is just evil. By Sharia if you're just an apostate or kafir paying jijiya who has done some miniscule mistake which might include affecting the feeling of an Imandar(i.e Muslims). Now anyone can be a kafir because the definition of being a muslim is extremely vague in Quran and hadiths, so that's why you see violence between shia, sunni, ahmediya and all others. Even different factions between Sunnis.
The electric chair and lethal injection have both resulted in torturous, prolonged deaths for some victims. If beheading is done correctly, you essentially die right away.
I would argue that the masses of people that flock to see the beheading also result in some stress towards the victim. But the fact that it is not a clean room beheading but a public one culturally dependent too ...
If we argue which type of death is more or less pleasant we've directly descended into not just the Middle East, but the Middle Ages.
I mean Singapore has draconian punishments for crimes too but they correspondingly have next to no drug use. We lose tens of thousands of people to fentanyl every year, whole towns are devastated etc. Hanging a few drug smugglers is definitely the lesser evil.
That being said, I enjoy my individual rights in the US and wouldn’t live anywhere else but there is a valid argument to be made that our ethics are sometimes a little too short sighted/individualistic and not holistic enough.
(I’m also definitely against the death penalty, just trying to make a point)
The thing is, the death penalties in Singapore are in the single digits per year (out of a population of 6 million, effectively higher as this excludes non-citizens). People are not killed without thought, there is careful and lengthy investigations in each and every case.
The deterrence does work and saves countless lives that would have been taken from ODs and cartel-ish activities
Not true at all, I worked there for a week. Clearly very wealthy African group on top of the marina Bay sands where we were paying like NZD$30 per vodka soda and these guys had multiple magnums of champagne, openly smoking weed.
Singapore = if you have money all of their supposed laws etc do not apply (just like so many other places).
Until you realize that there's about a 5% error in the justice system and if you're unlucky you don't just spend a few years unjustly in jail, not you are also maimed for life.
People that don't realize that can just crawl back to their cave and live out the darwinistic dreams there. (Just speaking/ranting generally here now.)
> Who would have thought that cutting someone's limbs off as a punishment would result in nearly very little theft in those countries too.
Only people that don't read up on the science. Draconian measure affect crime rates much less than immediate negative feedback after the crime (which doesn't need to be draconian).
absolutely. it's a matter of perspective. thinking that you and only you have the "moral" high road, just leads to oppression. good and bad are relative to who's making the judgement
