Western values vs. ...?

[Mangalore]

There is often an argument that the West is too arrogant assuming its values can be applied universally and rejecting the notion that other societies might be entirely okay with their own value systems. It often creates a kind of normative moral relativism rejecting any validity in criticizing other nations for lack of liberty, for oppression, discrimination or autocratic rule. It's declared part of a society's culture, hence their value system and hence it becomes none of our western business.

Setting aside that the West calls its fundamental values universal and thus quite logically applies it universally and meddles in everyone's business I wonder: What are the contenders? What are the competing value systems in the world right now and what advantages do they have to the so called western value system?

Are there even contenders that have such a comprehensive construct to inform guidelines on how an utopian society is supposed to be run? Communism tried to create an alternative social system (albeit with a lot of the same western foundation identifying different flaws and solutions in the status quo with similar end goals to achieve an utopian society). It didn't work very well to not at all (<understatement = had serious flaws in application) but in theoretical terms the ideology was obviously very appealing (it toppled tons of particularly non western societies and threatened western societies with serious flaws in application of western values. I would say the western value system boils down to: The individual is the foundation of all society and the goal of society is to manage the best balance of potential for all individuals in that society. There are a lot of variation in western countries and by no means any of them are perfect but the unifying idea is how to give every human being a maximum of freedoms and protection and managing conflicts of interests between them but an individual is to be empowered to the point that it can win in court against the state, reach any position in government on her own merit or pursue happiness or riches within the constraints of the social compact.

Now what do you think are the alternatives around, what are their values, what are their attributes, what are their results?

Is the Chinese system of a benevolent autocracy to ensure order and stability a better system? Is it actually a form of technocratic capitalism? Does it work for the Chinese? Would it work elsewhere? Is it sustainable?

Is the Russian system which is exercised by Putin and in neighboring states from Belarus to Usbekistan? Is there a value system for a society behind it?

Islamic world? Any takers?

Is India altering western values to its unique culture? Is it better? Does it have advantages?

Is there a different social construct elsewhere (maybe Subsaharan Africa)?




The main point however is: Usually the criticism of western arrogance lacks making a counter argument of what the ignored alternative is? I'm obviously biased as one of those privileged white guys in the western world, but I'd like to see and explore what the competition is and if I'm blinded by ignorance of that.

[PointOfViewGun]

The individual is the foundation of all society and the goal of society is to manage the best balance of potential for all individuals in that society.

Can't this be applied to any of those "alternatives"? It's just that different states apply it differently, including the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians.

The arrogance probably starts with calling such values as Western as if anyone can have an ownership of them.

[SLN445]

With my limited knowledge i would say that China is the closest to offering a viable counter to the "Western" system.
Russia feels like its somewhat stuck in the cold war mentality, the Islamic world seems to have gone backwards where it has rejected "Western" values and India has to deal with the issues caused by the Caste system and old traditions that don't mesh well with a modern society.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a "western" value system. If you went about doing a proper survey, you'll notice that none of the values tested for will be accepted universally, and even the ones that are accepted by the majority of people will be placed in differing orders of importance, and in how they're implemented into practice and even understood in theory will vary widely.

There are certainly collections of social norms, and some artificial philosophical constructs like human rights and institutions guiding some collective western (and non-western) thinking, but they don't apply universally or uniformly enough to lump together under one system. For example, is capitalism a western value? What about socialism them, the other and partially contradictory end of the scale? Or how about separation of church and state, which is ironclad in places like France but dodgy in the US? Or maybe human rights, which are well and good until they need to be applied to non-citizens, at which point they're swept under the carpet?

Even if you look at some of the "alternatives", they aren't much better grounded. Communism was applied differently in every place that tried to implement it, Islam has many different sects whose differences are often more inconsolable then their differences with the secular world, Russia's authoritarianism isn't a value system so much as a form of government that holds much practical power, but very little ideology, and China's system is likewise based around institutions and social norms more then value systems.

These value systems seem to me like an over simplified way of looking at the world, which simply doesn't capture the incredibly complex reality of it all.

[hellheaven1987]

Is the Chinese system of a benevolent autocracy to ensure order and stability a better system?

I thought that question was long answered in 1945?

Is the Russian system which is exercised by Putin and in neighboring states from Belarus to Usbekistan? Is there a value system for a society behind it?

Putin's government is really just an ad hoc organization that tries to deal the chaos in Russia after dissolve of USSR, believe it is permanent is, at best, laughable (yes even Putin would laugh at you).

Islamic world? Any takers?

Muslims cannot even agree a general course now.

Is India altering western values to its unique culture? Is it better? Does it have advantages?

India does not even have an unified culture at all, its problem hence is it still needs to justify the existence of India as a state.

[fkizz]

Modern west vs Traditional West

[Papay]

Keep in mind that in the 1930s there were many people who thought that democracy is finished and that fascism is the future. If in the end Europe became democratic and not Fascist or communist it was because it happened that the European democracies had support from abroad(particularly America). The western powers are lucky enough to not have internal problems similar to that of Yugoslavia or Iraq. No internal divisions exist that could create problems in a democratic system.

[Mangalore]

Can't this be applied to any of those "alternatives"? It's just that different states apply it differently, including the Russians, the Chinese or the Iranians.

Maybe I formulated to arcane. In Russia the state enforces whatever he likes and the citizens are expected to concede to its directives. There is some feedback loop in politicians not wanting a riot but they are the ones deciding what is fundamentally right or wrong. The individual is not the foundation since directives come top down, e.g. you are gay? Tough luck, the state just decided you are an abnormal individual that needs to be fixed according to the state's idea of a model citizen.

To use a clear cut example in a totalitarian state there are no individuals but only subjects to obey to the state and enhance the nation which is seen as the fundamental entity to consider.

In a tribal system the honor of a clan goes above an individual as well.

The arrogance probably starts with calling such values as Western as if anyone can have an ownership of them.

Well we can remove geographic ownership and we have the idea of essentially liberty of the individual as the empowered citizen imbued with inviolable rights vs. what exactly?

It is often implied when democracies criticize non democratic nations that they have no right to criticize because different societies have different value systems and thus they can't be judged by democratic standards. My problem already starts in seeing coherent alternative value systems. Is there actually a value system attached to enforcing Sharia? Obedience might be a very important basis?

[PointOfViewGun]

Maybe I formulated to arcane. In Russia the state enforces whatever he likes and the citizens are expected to concede to its directives. There is some feedback loop in politicians not wanting a riot but they are the ones deciding what is fundamentally right or wrong. The individual is not the foundation since directives come top down, e.g. you are gay? Tough luck, the state just decided you are an abnormal individual that needs to be fixed according to the state's idea of a model citizen.

To use a clear cut example in a totalitarian state there are no individuals but only subjects to obey to the state and enhance the nation which is seen as the fundamental entity to consider.

In a tribal system the honor of a clan goes above an individual as well.

Well we can remove geographic ownership and we have the idea of essentially liberty of the individual as the empowered citizen imbued with inviolable rights vs. what exactly?

It is often implied when democracies criticize non democratic nations that they have no right to criticize because different societies have different value systems and thus they can't be judged by democratic standards. My problem already starts in seeing coherent alternative value systems. Is there actually a value system attached to enforcing Sharia? Obedience might be a very important basis?

I believe the values you're playing at are whether individuals can govern themselves or not to put it bluntly. In that case, there are merits to the other side. It's "individuals can rule themselves" vs. "they can't rule themselves". One could argue that when individuals are given the choice to choose they choose wrong. A totalitarian regime would feel that they know the best for the people and that they need to choose for them. I believe there is some success in that argument based on context. Democracy is not something that people can utilize by default. It's a culture that needs to be introduced properly and periodically.

Enlightened absolutism comes to mind. I personally lean towards technocracy.

Some could also point out that even though you have democracy in the West you still have many checks and balances, that you still need authoritative forces to fix thing up.

There is also difference between criticism and being hypocritical about it. Most of the time, Western nations are verbally attacked because of their own conduct. Operation Ajax, for example. When you have a Western nation helping to topple a democratically elected government you might feel that they're being arrogant when they talk about the importance of democracy.

[hellheaven1987]

It is often implied when democracies criticize non democratic nations that they have no right to criticize because different societies have different value systems and thus they can't be judged by democratic standards.

Only if the people believe democracy is the goal itself, which is not, as far as I know, what Universal/Western value is.

[Enros]

The rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights should absolutely apply to everyone and there is simply no alternative.

However, Western foreign policy has been arrogant and hypocritical because while it advocates for these rights in the developing world, it is constantly denying them to its own citizens. Western human rights abuses may be insignificant compared to what goes in many developing countries, but they are still human rights abuses.

Most European countries and Canada simply don't believe in freedom of speech. They send people to jail for telling jokes, insulting people, and disagreeing with the officially sanctioned view of history. America

Let me list for you the articles of the UDHR the average Westerner is currently not able to enjoy:

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 23.

• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Here's a quote from a study of American media bias:

From the early 1930s until...2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture.

[sumskilz]

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

llegal downloading is a human rights violation.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Modern western values are the direct consequence of two patently western currents of thought clashing with each other during the later part of the XIX century and the first half of the twentieth one. There's romanticism and other conservative or "traditional" variants, which put the emphasis on common culture, different identities and particular value roots, the beliefs and attitudes that are "inextricable" from a certain people's "nation" o "religion". And individual rationalism on the other, opposing, side: égalité et liberté, the cult of the rational and universal man that can create it's own progress by advancing sciences, technology and arts. The most salient product of the ideological and moral conflict that these ideas fought, at least in an overly simplified fashion for the sake of explaining, is political liberalism. This "clash" took a somber side at times but I would put the "beginning of the end" during the second post war, the core value system of any secular representative democracy, this form of liberalism, is a sort of "permanent compromise" where rational and reasonable doctrines of radically distant origins can differ and discuss without suppressing the opponent or trying to kill each other's members.

I don't know where's the alternative right now, the universal scope of Western Values and their incarnation in the form of legalistic formulas like "Human Rights" makes the frontier really difficult to scout... maybe in archaic religious traditions that have been tainted with the more "totalitarian" (a deeply modern phenomenon I dare say) elements of political instigation? Radicalized forms of Islamic reaction toward the advance of western beliefs?

[Sar1n]

I think you're approaching this the wrong way.

The so-called Western values center around an individual. In this philosophy, the concept of individual and his/her rights is supreme, and individual is the primary unit of society. There are, however, alternatives.

In many Asian coutries, most prominently pre-communist China, Japan and Korea, it's the family that takes this role. An individual is expected to put the good of his/her family first over his/her personal feelings and desires. A variation of this could be called "Eastern Communism", where the whole nation takes the role of "family". There's a good reason why styling of leader as "father of his nation" always worked so well in the east.

Modern Islamism is a theocratic system where religion takes precedence and everything in society is subject to it.

And there are most likely other social systems around, I jsut can't think of any right now (kinda sleepy). It boils down to essentially one thing. What is the cornerstone of the social system, what is (ideally) inalienable when push comes to shove?

[Takizama]

All civilizations assume their values should be applied on others. Look at the islam community attacks charlie hedbo due to them insulting the prophet.

Last time i checked he is located in the middle east, not France.

[Claudius Gothicus]

All civilizations assume their values should be applied on others. Look at the islam community attacks charlie hedbo due to them insulting the prophet.

Last time i checked he is located in the middle east, not France.

Maybe in the globalized world of today where opinions and attitudes on the most basic or complex of human practices are clashing everyday... but I would not dare to extend this current situation, a patently modern one, to the entire history of human civilizations. Back in Roman times, and for many years, the empire demanded political compliance, the acceptance of some basic public duties and not much else: state cult, taxes and eventual military assistance; other issues of private or local nature where left to the community, including religious activities and the distribution of justice, for a very long time. The construction of legally sanctioned classes of individuals also meant a strong limit to universalism as a value.

[Cesco]

Back in Roman times, and for many years, the empire demanded political compliance, the acceptance of some basic public duties and not much else: state cult, taxes and eventual military assistance; other issues of private or local nature where left to the community, including religious activities and the distribution of justice, for a very long time.

Greeks and Romans were far more intellectually refined than "western" average man

[Claudius Gothicus]

Greeks and Romans were far more intellectually refined than "western" average man

Only some of those greeks or romans that actually left written records. Most were artisans, farmers, peasants or laborers with little to no formal education. Even a well-oiled bureaucratic war machine like the Roman Army relied on just a handful of literate soldiers per legion (without including officers, of course). Universal notions like equality were of little to no relevance in such a world, this only started to change with the extension of eastern sects like Christianity and the consequent interaction with neo-platonism, from there came a scatology that considered all souls worth saving and the first notions of "abstract individual" sprang.

[Mangalore]

Only if the people believe democracy is the goal itself, which is not, as far as I know, what Universal/Western value is.

Democracy is a conclusion aka the most approbiate tool to adhere to the value system. The criticism is really not just about lack of democracy but also that whatever else is done it doesn't have these universal ideas in mind.

The rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights should absolutely apply to everyone and there is simply no alternative.

However, Western foreign policy has been arrogant and hypocritical because while it advocates for these rights in the developing world, it is constantly denying them to its own citizens. Western human rights abuses may be insignificant compared to what goes in many developing countries, but they are still human rights abuses.

Most European countries and Canada simply don't believe in freedom of speech. They send people to jail for telling jokes, insulting people, and disagreeing with the officially sanctioned view of history. America

Let me list for you the articles of the UDHR the average Westerner is currently not able to enjoy:

You do realize how Article 12 will already put constraints on Article 19 and 23? That the legislation balances these different articles based on precedence is meant to happen. Just as a vague guideline: The articles coming first take precedence over articles coming later. They are however usually also the more abstract ones.

Why is there a constant obsession about freedom of speech? There are others, too, some of which more important like not getting murdered or tortured for any reason whatsoever, period!


You also make the fallacy that because something has not achieved utopian bliss it immediately invalidates itsself. This ignores that said western countries do talk about their own shortcomings far more on an day to day basis than criticizing others. It's again meant to be part of the envisioned system that in contrast to alternative governmental systems it is capable of self improvements over time.

I believe the values you're playing at are whether individuals can govern themselves or not to put it bluntly. In that case, there are merits to the other side. It's "individuals can rule themselves" vs. "they can't rule themselves". One could argue that when individuals are given the choice to choose they choose wrong. A totalitarian regime would feel that they know the best for the people and that they need to choose for them. I believe there is some success in that argument based on context. Democracy is not something that people can utilize by default. It's a culture that needs to be introduced properly and periodically.

Fair point, however when did we see a totalitarian regime behave beneficial for a nation in the long run?

Enlightened absolutism comes to mind. I personally lean towards technocracy.

Technically the bureaucratic apparatus of a democracy fills that role while removing authoritarian power from it.

Some could also point out that even though you have democracy in the West you still have many checks and balances, that you still need authoritative forces to fix thing up.

Here I do not see the point. What authoritative forces fix what up without oversight or control ov democratic institutions? Also, so what precisely? Ideals are a state of perfection to strive for, not necessarily a state immediately realized. That it is not fully achieved does not invalidate it.

There is also difference between criticism and being hypocritical about it. Most of the time, Western nations are verbally attacked because of their own conduct. Operation Ajax, for example. When you have a Western nation helping to topple a democratically elected government you might feel that they're being arrogant when they talk about the importance of democracy.

Yes, that happened, but is a poor defense for Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Syria or the Iranian regime itself to complain about it. It's hypocritical in itself to complain about double standards you do not share.

It would however be interesting to what extend what you describe actually happened and what caused such behaviour by western powers. Justified or not I think the main cause of such events seems to be when there actually was a competing value system out there and country was seen to swing towards that ideology during the Cold War.

It would also be interesting concerning peace theory if the frequency of such events was different for democratic and non democratic actors as in most such studies the net effects of democratization is that democratic nations decrease frictions with each other while they can be just as vicious to nations they perceive as non democratic while non democratic nations behave the same like the later case overall.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fair point, however when did we see a totalitarian regime behave beneficial for a nation in the long run?

Technically the bureaucratic apparatus of a democracy fills that role while removing authoritarian power from it.

Here I do not see the point. What authoritative forces fix what up without oversight or control ov democratic institutions? Also, so what precisely? Ideals are a state of perfection to strive for, not necessarily a state immediately realized. That it is not fully achieved does not invalidate it.

Yes, that happened, but is a poor defense for Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Syria or the Iranian regime itself to complain about it. It's hypocritical in itself to complain about double standards you do not share.

It would however be interesting to what extend what you describe actually happened and what caused such behaviour by western powers. Justified or not I think the main cause of such events seems to be when there actually was a competing value system out there and country was seen to swing towards that ideology during the Cold War.

It would also be interesting concerning peace theory if the frequency of such events was different for democratic and non democratic actors as in most such studies the net effects of democratization is that democratic nations decrease frictions with each other while they can be just as vicious to nations they perceive as non democratic while non democratic nations behave the same like the later case overall.

Totalitarian regimes are not good for the long run as the risk of getting a bad leader increased with each new leader. However, I would say that a technocratic regime would be a little bit totalitarian but if the system to choose those people that will lead is designed and implemented properly it could be good in the long run as well. Similarly, you could ask about sudden implementation of democracy from a totalitarian regime and whether it was successful or not. In many places it haven't been.

I don't see how bureaucratic apparatus of a democracy fills the role of technocracy. You perhaps assume that state officials are given those positions purely based on their merit and that they represent the best out there. They usually aren't. Laws are still made by elected individuals anyways. It's mostly the execution that is governed by bureaucracy.

Well, the presidency system provides some totalitarian measures. The veto or executive order power are two of them. Also, consider the influence of corporations. They create a sense of oligarchy concerning certain parts of the governance.

The last point on my previous post is on your questioning of Western arrogance. So, Iranians don't really need to share your values to claim Westerners as arrogant and hypocritical given that US and UK together orchestrated a coup in Iran to topple a democratically elected government because the government was nationalizing it's domestic resources. Perhaps, in the past, they did share those values but nonetheless it is irrelevant. Such examples of power play is not that rare around the world. The fact that we didn't have as many such cases in the last few decades, though that too is debatable, is not really because US is more modern or democratic and true to its values but mostly because such cases are not that useful anymore. So, someone could say "You yourself took totalitarian action towards other nation when the very ideas you argue for produce inconvenient outcomes. Who are you tell me that my values are wrong?"

Apart from all these, communism has a lot of merits as well. In the past, it was implemented with the well being of the select few in power. If implemented properly, it could very well provide a long-term value system for a state.