How do we know which side is right?

[Jaded Sage]

I saw something on the Internet a while ago that made a comparison between the (original) Star Wars situation and the situation in the Middle East. In both, there is a superpower and an underdog. In the movies, the superpower is bad and the underdog is good; in real life, the superpower is good and the underdog is bad. In situations like these, how can we ever be sure which one is good and which one is bad?—Looking for a more complete and thorough answer than "it's relative" or "it depends."

The bad guys in the movies seek to destroy an entire culture: the jedi. You might say that some Americans favor a war on islam over a war on terror. That is a single way in which the one is like the other. There might be more.

[Dalek Prime]

Unfortunately, life decisions are not based on what's right, but what is necessary for one party or the other. They are conflicting needs for survival of a way of life, be it an individual, or a group. It will always be this way. Doesn't answer the question, but it is true.

[Impenitent]

The Spice must flow

-Imp

[Greta]

I think of it more in terms of evolution than "right" and "wrong".

The extreme gender inequality of theist authoritarians is a remnant of a more primitive mindset, inherited from our animalistic past. It's no accident that the cultures that most oppress women are economically weak and not showing any signs of recovery. A culture that wastes half of its "human resources", failing to utilise the skills of their females, is one that cannot successfully compete globally.

[Dalek Prime]

The Spice must flow

-Imp

And there you have it, in a nutshell. (I only liked the first book, btw. The second book lost me by the first page. So contrived.)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

in real life, the superpower is good and the underdog is bad.

Really?

[Jaded Sage]

in real life, the superpower is good and the underdog is bad.

Really?

That's the assumption, yes. Note that I question that assumption in the title of the post.

[Jaded Sage]

I think of it more in terms of evolution than "right" and "wrong".

The extreme gender inequality of theist authoritarians is a remnant of a more primitive mindset, inherited from our animalistic past. It's no accident that the cultures that most oppress women are economically weak and not showing any signs of recovery. A culture that wastes half of its "human resources", failing to utilise the skills of their females, is one that cannot successfully compete globally.

That's very interesting and very true, Greta, but I don't see how that's related to the question. We can go on listing ways in which the superpower and the underdog both have similarities both to the good and to the bad, but eventually, we will have to ask which similarities count and which do not, which only leads us back to my original question.

[Jaded Sage]

Unfortunately, life decisions are not based on what's right, but what is necessary for one party or the other. They are conflicting needs for survival of a way of life, be it an individual, or a group. It will always be this way. Doesn't answer the question, but it is true.

I suppose. But what I am asking is, based on those decisions, which one is more in the right, assuming there is such a thing. And, as a group, let's not cop out, saying that assumption is mistaken.

[Greta]

I think of it more in terms of evolution than "right" and "wrong".

The extreme gender inequality of theist authoritarians is a remnant of a more primitive mindset, inherited from our animalistic past. It's no accident that the cultures that most oppress women are economically weak and not showing any signs of recovery. A culture that wastes half of its "human resources", failing to utilise the skills of their females, is one that cannot successfully compete globally.

That's very interesting and very true, Greta, but I don't see how that's related to the question. We can go on listing ways in which the superpower and the underdog both have similarities both to the good and to the bad, but eventually, we will have to ask which similarities count and which do not, which only leads us back to my original question.

That was my point, you can't weigh good and bad. It all just is. Say we use kindness as a yardstick? Kindness to whom? What of kindness to other species? Or environmental responsibility? Economic equality?

It's all too complex so I make it simple. I don't like bullying, so harsh treatment of the vulnerable is a problem for me. Yet societies are pluralistic, so a currently dominant or authoritarian leadership can give one false impressions of a populace.

My view is that the more distinctively human we are - and the less animalistic we are - then the better we are. We are at our worst when we express our animalism - fear, greed, aggression and violence, etc. We are at our best when we are most "human" - kind, empathetic, deep-thinking, pacifist. Obviously there's a long way to go before we transcend our fear and aggression based animal behaviours, and my guess is that that can only happen when we are all safely ensconced in VR (preferably being synthetic beings without physical needs), and with endless virtual resources to enjoy without anyone having to fight to get what they want.

Sorry if this answer is not direct. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question.

[Jaded Sage]

That was my point, you can't weigh good and bad. It all just is. Say we use kindness as a yardstick? Kindness to whom? What of kindness to other species? Or environmental responsibility? Economic equality?

It's all too complex so I make it simple. I don't like bullying, so harsh treatment of the vulnerable is a problem for me. Yet societies are pluralistic, so a currently dominant or authoritarian leadership can give one false impressions of a populace.

My view is that the more distinctively human we are - and the less animalistic we are - then the better we are. We are at our worst when we express our animalism - fear, greed, aggression and violence, etc. We are at our best when we are most "human" - kind, empathetic, deep-thinking, pacifist. Obviously there's a long way to go before we transcend our fear and aggression based animal behaviours, and my guess is that that can only happen when we are all safely ensconced in VR (preferably being synthetic beings without physical needs), and with endless virtual resources to enjoy without anyone having to fight to get what they want.

Sorry if this answer is not direct. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question.

Greta, I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to pit one society/culture against another tho, would it? Using kindness as the yardstick is a good idea. I wonder if it is THE idea.

To see if it is, we would have to ask what kindness is, what it entails by nature.

Consider how islamic culture makes women cover all of their bodies. In the west we consider this an unkindness. But consider this: I went to a school that required uniforms. I hated it at the time, but after graduation, I came to look upon it favorably. It took away the need to worry about what to wear and promoted togetherness. The women of islamic culture can worry less about what to wear, whether their makeup looks good, how they will be treated based on their beauty or ugliness. Instead of being judged by their outward appearance, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would approve of, they are judged more by the content of their character.

Is that not a greater kindness than women are shown in the western world regarding clothing and appearance and character?

[Consider Fox News (I pick them because I watch them). The males need not be attractive, only qualified, but you will not find a single female who could not just as easily have started a career in modeling. This is true of the other two major news networks. The only exception I have found is Candy on CNN. I wonder how she got the position. In addition to this, we see trophy wives not trophy husbands. And there was promoted for a short time the concept of the 'dad body' as beautiful tho unfit, but no promotion of the feminine counterpart.]

If so, then this demonstrates that we must rid ourselves of all of our preconceived notions of kindness, and examine it until we understand its essence. Only then can we proclaim one culture more kind than another, and therefore superior to the other.


Also, we might be able to rank the different types of kindness according to their importance. Surely not reducing someone to their sexuality is a greater kindness than loaning someone a dollar.

[henry quirk]

Imp has it right: 'The Spice must flow'.

We're good at dressing things up, but -- bottom line -- it's 'resource' (the need for, the scarcity of) that drives the bus.

The Wahabbist threatens (access to, owership of) resource, so he has to go. Islam is seen as the foutainhead for the terrorist, so it has to go.

So, "which side is right?" really depends on which side you're on.

[Jaded Sage]

Is that what that phrase means?

[henry quirk]

It comes from Herbert's 'Dune' books. Spice or Melange was this brain/body altering substance that, depending on use, could extend life, expand consciousness, bestow all manner of psychic abilities, etc. Spice was crucial to the interstellar economy. Without it civillization couldn't be. So, no matter what, 'the Spice must flow'. Any-thing or -one threatening spice production and use had to go.

Resource, resource, and resource (with morality, ethics, philosophy tacked as window dressing).

[Greta]

Consider how islamic culture makes women cover all of their bodies. In the west we consider this an unkindness. But consider this: I went to a school that required uniforms. I hated it at the time, but after graduation, I came to look upon it favorably. It took away the need to worry about what to wear and promoted togetherness. The women of islamic culture can worry less about what to wear, whether their makeup looks good, how they will be treated based on their beauty or ugliness. Instead of being judged by their outward appearance, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would approve of, they are judged more by the content of their character.

Is that not a greater kindness than women are shown in the western world regarding clothing and appearance and character?

It is not kind to beat, rape and humiliate women for not covering up. Why not cover up all men too? Because women in fundamentalist Islamic cultures are men's property. Objects. Sub human. So the rules and their enforcement are far from kind and are, in fact, exactly the contrary. It's cruel, base, selfish and utterly ignorant.

The closest thing to evil in this life is objectification of the sentient and that's what happens in fundamentalist Islamic states. I think it's fair to say that we can at least identify the cultures that are most wrong - those that believe in childish superstitions and use those muddle-headed beliefs to harm innocents.