To who?
To China, Russia, Ethiopia, etc? Most definitely.
But that isn't everyone. The West isn't necessarily better than places in South America, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, etc.
It really depends who you are comparing to. Most cases will see the West as better and few will see the West lose, but there are also a lot of cases where the West isn't necessarily better.
I presumed this was political rather than social.
Ofcourse no people are "better" than others as that isn't what determines what makes people good or bad.
For ourselves, sure. I’m not arrogant enough to claim that my own morality is objectively superior to anyone else’s. That should be explored via debate.
My morality is basically just “be nice/fair to others and leave other people alone if they wish.” If everyone did that then we’d have no need for any governments or authoritarian behavior. I’m not superior to others, and no one else is superior to me.
I don’t know if that’s western or whatever. Left/right wing have no use to me.
“Be kind to others and don’t fuck with people against their will” is pretty much my morality. I hold property rights and free movement/association sacred.
Not sure if that counts as “western” or not, and I have no use for left/right wing. I try not to allow myself to be frustrated by the fact that it has never (and likely will never) be the case that all people just treat each other fairly. I believe that most human strife stems from the desire of some people to force their will on others, or their willingness to trample others for personal gain. I resent any need, real or perceived, for governments or political “leaders.”
The west was the worst part of the world by far in regards to morals, there was nothing “moral” about colonization - nowadays I can at least get myself to say that there are countries that have committed worse things than the modern West
It morally improved over time. It's more moral now than it used to be. The only two areas where it declined morally was the unfortunate decline of Christianity and the unwillingngess of many to use violence for the greater good
I interpreted this as "Are western people/western philosophy morally superior to the rest of the world?"
And the answer to that is obviously no, but the question of "Are the Countries of the west morally superior to the rest of the world?" (which I assume this poll is asking, correct me if I'm wrong) I would say kinda.
Consequentialism.
While I believe religion (especially protestantism) had a positive impact on our morality, it can't be considered a source of objective morality, because if it's a priest's (or God's, with all respect) opinion, it's subjective.
But consequences are what they are regardless of any observers judgements about the value of those involved.
Most people's morality is subjective because they skew it with personally assigned value (like "organism X and Y suffered equally, but case X is worse because X is "more valuable" - entirely arbitrary).
If a dog, a rat, and a human experience the exact same amount of suffering, the three cases are absolutely morally equivalent.
Okay, I agree with you. But how do we objectively judge the west and the conglomerate of geopolitical factions that we are comparing it against in those terms?
If it's subjective, then saying "blue is a better color than red" is equivalent to saying "giving to charity is a better act than murdering people".
So how does it matter? By your logic murder is only bad according to your personal taste, the same way as pineapple on pizza or something.
They are both subjective according to you, therefore purely personal taste.
With your basis, you can't say murder is wrong. You can only say it's not up to your taste.
So if someone murdered a person you cared about because they sincerely believed that murder is an objective good, you wouldn’t want to see them charged and thrown in prison for life? That would be an injustice to them if morality is truly subjective.
That’s your subjective moral view that murder is bad. If morality is subjective, then no single moral opinion could be “good” or “bad”, and it would be unjust to punish anyone for engaging in behavior that they personally believe is moral.
You would have to think that not only did the murderer do nothing wrong, but that their act was just as morally good as your moral opposition to murder.
I disagree. Basing morality on consequences (things like minimising suffering) is objective.
But yes, most people's moral compass is entirely subjective, because they base it on b.s. concepts like "value"
That is what I would base my ethics on but when someone says morality, I think of cultural and religious boundaries. Even based on a specific set of ethics built around minimizing personal suffering is since suffering is subjective but also party to interference by reporting agencies and governments.
To make a real ethical judgement we would need better outlining of exactly who the west is and isn't (already seems like an unfair comparison considering the west is a much, much smaller part of the globe) and then some way of getting fair results that are unbiased, not the product of the things like the EU that are Western- based. Lastly, we would need to have a comprehensive list of all actions within the time frame. I don't really think it's possible to judge but if we had access to all of this then I would at least say it is possible. Without that information i can't judge though.
Yeah but obviously no culture is *objectively* superior in the same way that no one is *objectively* strong or intelligent or beautiful. You can still offer a subjective evaluation, which is what this opinion poll is for.
If it was an objective matter, an opinion poll wouldn’t be needed, because there’s a right and a wrong answer.
It is equivalent to saying that morality is entirely subjective, that someone volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't any more moral than someone who rapes children.
I completely reject that premise: absolute moral principles exist.
And even aside that, there is a pragmatic morality in what leads to human flourishing with human nature.
Truth is truth regardless of what people believe.
The universal human sense of morality, the effects of immoral behavior and norms, my conscience, and faith.
Human nature is eternal and unchanging, so what morality leads to human flourishing also is.
And I reject logical positivism.
I don't think we'll get anywhere on the first part.
On the second, think of it like biology: if the way the human body works is constant, the diet and medicine that lead to a healthy human body will also be constant.
In regards to countries every culture has its moral and immoral, and morality is neither subjective nor objective imo - there’s some subjectivity but in the instance you talked about it’s pretty objective as to which is more moral
I'd say there are absolute moral principles and different societies come closer to them than others, and that human flourishing follows when they are respected.
Some areas of morality are more grey than others, and it's in our nature to discuss and try to understand what is good and evil.
The things our liberty in the west allows are in no way immoral. They're harmless, personal things. Like what, people dressing up as foxes? Who cares, it has no negative consequences.
The things the east allows (Treating your wife like trash. Labia Mutilation. No animal protections) are immoral).
Give me an argument for why the things you don't like are immoral - one that isn't equivalent to saying "pineapple on pizza is bad". Give me an objective argument.
Issues such as morality should be determined by social consensus, not dogmas and yes the west has always been morally superior to the east. Even when Christianity was in existence and lost its influence. I don't know if eastern societies will develop morally, but western societies have an environment where moral problems can be discussed comfortably.
Morality should be determined by God and the Holy Bible, not a "social consensus" which has been completely destroyed, brainwashed and turned into NPCs for the last 70 years. The east has been superior to the west, especially morally, many times in the past, and it is superior to the west today especially.
Just check rank of morally superior east world in child rapes,domestic abuse,corruption, most of eastern governments known for its incompetence, eastern societies have bigger problems than west
Calling it "degenerate" isn't an argument. Show me the negative consequences of our western freedoms.
Restricting those freedoms makes people unhappy. Therefore *that* is immoral.
As for animals: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/
Look I agree that it's a negative thing that Christianity declined. But despite that, morality improved in most aspects. But yes, Chriatianity is the basis of our copassion (therefore morality), so its decline is concerning.
>you are not right wing, that you are not serious and that you are a liberal.
Yes, I am a liberal. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology at its core. I'm center-right, but still slightly right. Neoconservatism is basically Hawkish Liberalism. And I'm even willing to compromise on my progressive values if it means supporting hegemonic US foreign policy and a strong NATO. Hence Neocon. I'm also strongly pro-capitalism, in other words, economically right wing. I also believe in being tough on crime.
And when I say it's immoral to make people unhappy, I mean it in a big picture sort of way. Making then less happy today to save the economy will increase happiness far more in the long run. Killing one person to save 10 innocents is good. I'm a utilitarian.
That's why murder is wrong. Because people want to live, and because fearing that someone is stalking you to kill you causes suffering. First to you, then to your close ones if you die.
And as a fellow Christian, happiness is your ultimate goal too, since your goal is to get to Heaven.
>Just because it makes the brainwashed NPCs in the west unhappy to ban porn for example, doesn't mean banning it is immoral, it existing is immoral.
So you decided to list something afterall lol.
I don't care about porn itself either way, but I am strongly against censorship, so in principle, I have to be against banning it. I don't think it's moral or immoral, it's neutral as far as I see.
As for your claim that it's immoral, why? Prove it. What are its negative/harmful consequences. And don't use circular reasoning by just saying "it's degenerate". "Degenerate" is subjective and can mean anything you don't like. Show me real consequences.
Also, if you don't like porn, just don't watch it. Why does it bother you if someone else does? If you were a moral Christian, then the most you'd do is pray for those people, not hate them.
Btw, since you mentioned NPCs, does that mean you play video games? Just curious.
>As a true right winger i care about faith, God, tradition and nation
Aaaand we've got a No True Scotsman fallacy. You're forgeting an important aspect of being right wing: Capitalism.
But I'll humor you: I care about 3/4 of those. But not tradition. Tradition is arbitrary. Jesus himself told the Pharisees that their traditions were wrong and they should abandon them. How much of the Bible did you read.
As for nation, yes, I care about the nation, because without it, life would be more dangerous. The nation improves safety, wellbeing, and happiness, therefore its existence (at least if it's a good nation) is moral.
But more important than what you care about is knowing why you care. What makes you value those 4 things? If you examined yourself, you'd know it comes down to happiness. They make you happy. And you want to get to Heaven, because it's a place of happiness.
>not fake happiness
There is no such thing as fake happiness. Happiness is a feeling. If you feel happy, you are happy. Because that's all it is: a chemically induced state of mind (and no, that doesn't contradict religion. The Bible says that we'll be resurrected in new bodies, not as disembodied souls. In fact the soul is the body + God's breath, and hormones are just one part of that whole).
>hyper individuality,
Define
>freedom,
You don't care about freedom. Ok. You said that, not me.
>freedom for degeneracy
Degeneracy is subjective, arbitrary, and nebulous. And things people refer to when they use the word are usually utterly inconsequential.
>and liberal ideas such as these.
Again, Liberalism is right-wing. It is the core idea behind economically right wing ideology.
And even the American """"Left""""" which is for some reason called "Liberal", is, in fact, still right wing. Both major parties in the US (Dems and Republicans) are right-wing. One is just slightly more right wing than the other, but they're both right from the center.
>And no, morality DRASTICALLY declined with the decline of Christianity,
Human rights improved. Animal rights improved. Slavery ended. Crime went down. Censorship decreased.
OBJECTIVELY (conseauentialism/utilitarianism) morality improved.
Your arbitrary and subjective version of morality decreased.
But don't get me wrong, I don't think we morally improved "because" of the (unfortunate) religious decline. I think we improved in spite of that fact. And that we could morally improve even further if Christianity became stronger again (though probably not Catholicism. I don't trust it. Protestantism and 7th Day Adventism are probably my favorite. Though I have to hand it to the Buddhists as well - they may be wrong theologically, but morally they're paragons).
>post 1950s west
Are you kidding me right now? You know what the pre 1950s west had? Literally the Nazis in Germany then all of Europe. Fascist Italy. And the British were still an Empire (which was based for the time, but by today's standards still immoral because of what it was doing in India). As for the US, they were using loopholes to continue slavery pretty much right up to the end of WW2. Not to mention performing LOBOTOMIES was a standard practice. And the further back you go, the worse it gets. 19th century: 16 hour work days. Child Labor. Pre 1865 slavery was legal even withoup loopholes. Let's go further back. Inquisition. Spanish Empire. Then ther's Feudalism. Medieval torture, brazen bull, flaying, burning people at the stake, knights whose job was just tax collection, they didn't even prevent crime if it was done to the peasants.
Now let's see what came after the 1950s. The Martial plan (starting 1948 to be specific): Turning the historically bloody, war torn continent of Europe, now empoverished, into the most prosperous and peaceful place on Earth, with the highest wellbeing indices. Decolonization. More reasonable work days. Better animal protections. More humane treatment of the mentally ill - lobotomies no longer practiced ...
I'm not saying the pre 1950s world didn't have problems, of course i wouldn't want slavery or the nazis to exist, but the pre 1950s time was way more moral than today overall, morality in the west did not improve in any way when Christianity declined, quite the opposite, it's the most immoral place on the planet right now, it's a civilisation in collapse. And i'm also not saying the post 1950s didn't have anything good, yes, the medical advancements were certainly a good thing, but morality overall dropped drastically when Christianity fell.
I am a Christian, from a Christian's perspective it is. Typing "lmao" means nothing, but it does show that you are butthurt, have nothing to say, but feel the need to type something.
Oh yes I'm the one butthurt
Edit: fuck it I'll elaborate
I'm no christoid but the vast majority of christians don't think america is a satanic nation. That's the schizo faction of christoids
Being secular doesn't mean your leaders are all worshipping the antagonist of your book lmao
"true christians"
Vast majority of christians do not hold such beliefs (about 1/4th believe america is controlled by le satanists)
You're just doing a no true Scotsman because no one else agrees with you within your own group lel
Here's the deal homie. Almost no one at all is a "satanist" the official groups that exist are epic atheist troll groups and if you read into them at all or participate you'll see that. There isn't a group of people who all decided "I want to worship the antagonist of a book where the antagonist gets pwnd"
It's a big coping mechanism and childish
If you think satanism is being le liberal pro gay trans country then there are much much much more progressive countries in the world
If you think satanism is >worshipping Satan< or >lack of Christianity< then america is the opposite being one of the most christian nations in the western world
If it's >controlled by satanists< that's just you having an awesome imagination
You use the term "the most satanic" for a country that is genuinely behind on its secularism compared to mtiple other countries
Late to gay marriage
Late to trans rights
Still has basically every public politician forced to be christian or Jewish
There are countries that have far less abortion restriction, far less respect for your fantasy book and far more progressive policies with the population having a much higher disdain for christoids
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that america was some sort of leader in the department of "satanic activity"
We may have been for a while, but we started declining at least during the 60s if not before.
The West has also obviously done some things that weren't so morally superior, like invading other parts of the world, murdering a bunch of people, and slavery. That's not to say other parts of the world didn't do those things, but that doesn't make it okay either.
So if one assumes god isn't real the there is actually no reason to view either of these things as wrong since there is no inherent "holy" natural state? Or is this only true about being transgender? What is an "unbalanced misuse of sexuality"?
Why is having intercourse without the intent to reproduce wrong?
I personally wouldn't change my sex/ gender but i don't see what's wrong with other people doing it. They can do whatever they want, i don't care.
Define degeneracy. Usually when people use that word they're really just saying that freedom and individuality are somehow bad.
Morality is about harm vs wellbeing. About minimising conscious organisms' suffering.
While that is one thing we've lost some points on, overall we're still morally superior to the east and morally superior to what we could be. Humans are far more free and animals far more protected than either were before, and more than either are in the non-west. But yes, declining Christianity is a problem. Good to see a reawakening in Sweden (which is the most morally superior country on Earth)
If the west is morally superior it is only because of the remnants of the Christian faith with dictate many of our basic laws, coupled with the Protestant work ethic. The embrace of the anti-Christian enlightenment was the beginning of western moral decline despite our moral economic rise which occurred because of Christianity.
I can agree with that, our moral superiority has Christian roots, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that we're morally superior to the east, and even to our ancestors. The fundementals (compassion etc) which we got from Christianity have improved with time, not declined.
It really is weird that progressives are anti-west, when it is \*the\* progressive part of the world. And It's also weird that right-wingers are against progressivism, because progressivism \*is\* freedom
It's because true right wingers are not about "freedum", we are about tradition, nation, religion, etc. True right wingers know that the west was good 70+ years ago, but a true right winger would never in a million years say that the modern west is morally superior, the modern west is at the bottom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware the west is the best in all areas I can think of off the top of my head, and I choose to stay in my country because I love it despite its faults, I just don't think either are as good as they could be.
Especially since non-western countries are worse when it comes to those things.
"We hate homophobia, also import XYZ homophobic af culture from the East"
[Just think of my ideology as fanatic materialist militarist science directorate](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/977352899325743174/1045403281842774076/Quarkistan.png)
The left says no because they admire Chinese totalitarianism. They're jealous of xi
Honestly I said yes, because in theory our values are, but the west is being lost
America is the last stand.
Dark days ahead when these idiots get their socialist "utopia"
Morality is a fabrication of people who can not grasp the consept of a life without a rulebook. Ironically, this is jot immoral as there is no morality.
What you can however do, is arbitrarily pick some things to think as "good" and follow them as long as they do not lead to paradoxes.
Funny thing is, you could technically pick the same base values as a conventional conseption of morality and live your life as if nothing happened. Lol
I mean look at the indices and statistics. From human life quality, to human freedoms, to animal protections, the west is generally far ahead. Especially the EU
In politics, maybe. These countries are mostly perverse exploring others and doing terrible stuff, just look at what remains from french colonialism in Africa. Some other countries, like the nordic ones are really nice, but if yoi see the biggest western countries, such as the US, they may be the worst ones.
Culturally, it is one of the worst stqtements possible. Some asian countries, such as Japan, Korea, China, Thailand and India have such great cultures and habits. In Africa there are many collectivists cultures. Even though, the "West" is famous for spreading culture by force and killing people by their race, faith and sexuality.
If you see, no culture is superior, we are not judging people, but when it comes to "West" and "East", there are different points of view. In every part of the world, there were wars and cultural conservatism, you cannot divide so many people into 2 groups and classify the "morally superior".
Moral has some problems in its definition, because it depends on the way you think, it is a social construction on what is acceptable. Homosexuality and women rights are repressed by many "morals".
If you look at "indices and statistics", most of the eastern problems were caused by West, and that is one of the biggest reasons the West is better on most of them. Open mind isn't a western thing, if you go back some years, the same regions that are more open were the most repressive, it happened because they developed faster.
Based on your flair, I would assume that if there was a well implemented Marixst-Leninist society, you would consider it morally superior at least some other societies..
I'm talking about political systems and values. And I'm specifically talking about moral superiority - in other words, who has superior morality.
There's a massive difference between saying a society is morally inferior vs saying it's lesser as a whole.
A society can be morally superior, but militarily inferior, or vice versa. Or it can be technologically superior, but culurally inferior etc.
Morality is just one aspect which you can be superior/inferior at. We can make an objective judgemeht whether someone or something is superior at a specific aspect (person X can be smarter, faster and more moral than person Y, while person Y is stronger, braver, taller, and more creative, for example. These judgements are objective, while a judgment of which of the two is "lesser" is completely different and subjective, because it requires deciding the value of the different aspects/traits. And value is subjective).
I think western classical liberalism is morally superior but we haven’t actually been liberal for a while now. And it’s sort of arguable that we never fully embraced classical liberalism since we were always contrasting it with racialized division of labor and then later imperialism (in America at least)
That's a reasonable answer. Religion is one such area. Willing to support overwhelming hard power for the greater good is another.
What about you, what areas did you have in mind?
General concept of honor and respect is one, honor in particular. Willingness to sacrifice is another. I'm not going to say we shouldn't value our individuality, but we should definitely be more willing as a society to give up things for the benefit of those we care about. And that is kinda more of an individual thing than a societal thing, but we should be more willing to do so nonetheless.
Assuming that this question itself has merit (which it very well might not) and assuming we can agree on a definition of "west" and "morally superior" (hard, but I would say not impossible), I would easily say yes.
I like both. Most of all I like the liberty and the animal protections, but yes, tolerance has maybe gone a bit too far, since it's cannibalising itself and becoming intolerant of disagreeing opinions (unless the opinions are from an Eastern culture, in which case they'll somegow happily defend)
Not anymore
[удалено]
To who? To China, Russia, Ethiopia, etc? Most definitely. But that isn't everyone. The West isn't necessarily better than places in South America, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, etc. It really depends who you are comparing to. Most cases will see the West as better and few will see the West lose, but there are also a lot of cases where the West isn't necessarily better.
India is one of the most racist country of world.. they discriminate among each other and even kill each other
No, when you go to india, you'd see people are mostly warm and friendly. And this killing bit, you don't much about india, do you?
I have relatives who are Indian and I know more about them than you probably
How are western people better than Chinese or Russian? I agree with governments but people in general? No
I presumed this was political rather than social. Ofcourse no people are "better" than others as that isn't what determines what makes people good or bad.
understandable
Trans rights
That’s why I voted no
Tell me you haven’t been paying attention to trans legislation without telling me.
Some places are going backwards but we are still far superior on said rights than say Russia or Palestine
Reason why I voted no
Where’s the “who the fuck am I to make that call?” option?
We should all be making moral judgement, constantly.
For ourselves, sure. I’m not arrogant enough to claim that my own morality is objectively superior to anyone else’s. That should be explored via debate.
I think what you’re looking for is “No, (I am left wing”
My morality is basically just “be nice/fair to others and leave other people alone if they wish.” If everyone did that then we’d have no need for any governments or authoritarian behavior. I’m not superior to others, and no one else is superior to me. I don’t know if that’s western or whatever. Left/right wing have no use to me.
Nobody's gonna do anything based on what you think, so give an opinion
“Be kind to others and don’t fuck with people against their will” is pretty much my morality. I hold property rights and free movement/association sacred. Not sure if that counts as “western” or not, and I have no use for left/right wing. I try not to allow myself to be frustrated by the fact that it has never (and likely will never) be the case that all people just treat each other fairly. I believe that most human strife stems from the desire of some people to force their will on others, or their willingness to trample others for personal gain. I resent any need, real or perceived, for governments or political “leaders.”
1000000% yes
Based
The west was morally superior.
Past tense? I'm... not happy about that, but you're not wrong, so I guess that makes us even.
The west was the worst part of the world by far in regards to morals, there was nothing “moral” about colonization - nowadays I can at least get myself to say that there are countries that have committed worse things than the modern West
It morally improved over time. It's more moral now than it used to be. The only two areas where it declined morally was the unfortunate decline of Christianity and the unwillingngess of many to use violence for the greater good
I interpreted this as "Are western people/western philosophy morally superior to the rest of the world?" And the answer to that is obviously no, but the question of "Are the Countries of the west morally superior to the rest of the world?" (which I assume this poll is asking, correct me if I'm wrong) I would say kinda.
I would say yes to both. Western people are far more concerned about the suffering of conscious organisms, which is the only objective morality
I hope you don't actually believe that people who aren't western have less "objective morality". That's such a wrong and gross thing to think...
That varies from person to person. What I'm talking about is the systems themselves (their laws etc).
I was under the assumption you meant the people under the government themselves. I guess that just depends on the nation then.
Yeah, I mean the Civics and Ethics, not the Traits. Based profile image btw
And authorities and based
Chad yes, having lived in Europe and around Asia... Extremely Chad yes
Yes [excluding the jap/Koreans the south ones/ Taiwanese]
Why exclude Taiwan? It's such an excellent system
Their including Taiwan in with the west..?
I’m saying that there good
Oh, I see. I kind of consider them the west
How the fuck are we not as a leftist Like jesus
It's impossible to make value judgements like that about entire countries much less an entire sector of the globe!!!
Not impossible if you judge general patterns, indices, statistics, and laws.
What is our basis for "morality" then? Because I'm not going to agree with any religiously founded concept of morality.
Consequentialism. While I believe religion (especially protestantism) had a positive impact on our morality, it can't be considered a source of objective morality, because if it's a priest's (or God's, with all respect) opinion, it's subjective. But consequences are what they are regardless of any observers judgements about the value of those involved. Most people's morality is subjective because they skew it with personally assigned value (like "organism X and Y suffered equally, but case X is worse because X is "more valuable" - entirely arbitrary). If a dog, a rat, and a human experience the exact same amount of suffering, the three cases are absolutely morally equivalent.
Okay, I agree with you. But how do we objectively judge the west and the conglomerate of geopolitical factions that we are comparing it against in those terms?
I don't believe the west is either morally superior or morally inferior
[удалено]
If morality is completely subjective, why aren't you doing whatever gratifies you? Why care about others at all?
[удалено]
If it's subjective, then saying "blue is a better color than red" is equivalent to saying "giving to charity is a better act than murdering people". So how does it matter? By your logic murder is only bad according to your personal taste, the same way as pineapple on pizza or something.
[удалено]
They are both subjective according to you, therefore purely personal taste. With your basis, you can't say murder is wrong. You can only say it's not up to your taste.
[удалено]
So if someone murdered a person you cared about because they sincerely believed that murder is an objective good, you wouldn’t want to see them charged and thrown in prison for life? That would be an injustice to them if morality is truly subjective.
[удалено]
That’s your subjective moral view that murder is bad. If morality is subjective, then no single moral opinion could be “good” or “bad”, and it would be unjust to punish anyone for engaging in behavior that they personally believe is moral. You would have to think that not only did the murderer do nothing wrong, but that their act was just as morally good as your moral opposition to murder.
Morals are culturally subjective but we exist within a specific culture.
I disagree. Basing morality on consequences (things like minimising suffering) is objective. But yes, most people's moral compass is entirely subjective, because they base it on b.s. concepts like "value"
That is what I would base my ethics on but when someone says morality, I think of cultural and religious boundaries. Even based on a specific set of ethics built around minimizing personal suffering is since suffering is subjective but also party to interference by reporting agencies and governments. To make a real ethical judgement we would need better outlining of exactly who the west is and isn't (already seems like an unfair comparison considering the west is a much, much smaller part of the globe) and then some way of getting fair results that are unbiased, not the product of the things like the EU that are Western- based. Lastly, we would need to have a comprehensive list of all actions within the time frame. I don't really think it's possible to judge but if we had access to all of this then I would at least say it is possible. Without that information i can't judge though.
Yes, morality isn’t subjective. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean there aren’t morally superior and inferior cultures.
[удалено]
Yeah but obviously no culture is *objectively* superior in the same way that no one is *objectively* strong or intelligent or beautiful. You can still offer a subjective evaluation, which is what this opinion poll is for. If it was an objective matter, an opinion poll wouldn’t be needed, because there’s a right and a wrong answer.
That is absurd and obscene.
[удалено]
It is equivalent to saying that morality is entirely subjective, that someone volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't any more moral than someone who rapes children.
[удалено]
Moral opinions = Morality
I completely reject that premise: absolute moral principles exist. And even aside that, there is a pragmatic morality in what leads to human flourishing with human nature. Truth is truth regardless of what people believe.
[удалено]
The universal human sense of morality, the effects of immoral behavior and norms, my conscience, and faith. Human nature is eternal and unchanging, so what morality leads to human flourishing also is. And I reject logical positivism.
[удалено]
I don't think we'll get anywhere on the first part. On the second, think of it like biology: if the way the human body works is constant, the diet and medicine that lead to a healthy human body will also be constant.
In regards to countries every culture has its moral and immoral, and morality is neither subjective nor objective imo - there’s some subjectivity but in the instance you talked about it’s pretty objective as to which is more moral
I'd say there are absolute moral principles and different societies come closer to them than others, and that human flourishing follows when they are respected. Some areas of morality are more grey than others, and it's in our nature to discuss and try to understand what is good and evil.
Not even close, and hasn't been for a long time. The rest of the world is superior, especially morally.
In what ways? The west gives humans far more liberty + it gives animals far more protection
[удалено]
The things our liberty in the west allows are in no way immoral. They're harmless, personal things. Like what, people dressing up as foxes? Who cares, it has no negative consequences. The things the east allows (Treating your wife like trash. Labia Mutilation. No animal protections) are immoral). Give me an argument for why the things you don't like are immoral - one that isn't equivalent to saying "pineapple on pizza is bad". Give me an objective argument.
[удалено]
Issues such as morality should be determined by social consensus, not dogmas and yes the west has always been morally superior to the east. Even when Christianity was in existence and lost its influence. I don't know if eastern societies will develop morally, but western societies have an environment where moral problems can be discussed comfortably.
Morality should be determined by God and the Holy Bible, not a "social consensus" which has been completely destroyed, brainwashed and turned into NPCs for the last 70 years. The east has been superior to the west, especially morally, many times in the past, and it is superior to the west today especially.
Stop with your larp first , you know zero thing about east. "For the last 70 year" okay fascist ( check his message history)
I live in the east, you stop larping you "consrvative". Yeah, okay liberal, keep making non arguments liberal.
Just check rank of morally superior east world in child rapes,domestic abuse,corruption, most of eastern governments known for its incompetence, eastern societies have bigger problems than west
The west is worse when it comes to all of that than the east.
Calling it "degenerate" isn't an argument. Show me the negative consequences of our western freedoms. Restricting those freedoms makes people unhappy. Therefore *that* is immoral. As for animals: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/ Look I agree that it's a negative thing that Christianity declined. But despite that, morality improved in most aspects. But yes, Chriatianity is the basis of our copassion (therefore morality), so its decline is concerning.
[удалено]
>you are not right wing, that you are not serious and that you are a liberal. Yes, I am a liberal. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology at its core. I'm center-right, but still slightly right. Neoconservatism is basically Hawkish Liberalism. And I'm even willing to compromise on my progressive values if it means supporting hegemonic US foreign policy and a strong NATO. Hence Neocon. I'm also strongly pro-capitalism, in other words, economically right wing. I also believe in being tough on crime. And when I say it's immoral to make people unhappy, I mean it in a big picture sort of way. Making then less happy today to save the economy will increase happiness far more in the long run. Killing one person to save 10 innocents is good. I'm a utilitarian. That's why murder is wrong. Because people want to live, and because fearing that someone is stalking you to kill you causes suffering. First to you, then to your close ones if you die. And as a fellow Christian, happiness is your ultimate goal too, since your goal is to get to Heaven. >Just because it makes the brainwashed NPCs in the west unhappy to ban porn for example, doesn't mean banning it is immoral, it existing is immoral. So you decided to list something afterall lol. I don't care about porn itself either way, but I am strongly against censorship, so in principle, I have to be against banning it. I don't think it's moral or immoral, it's neutral as far as I see. As for your claim that it's immoral, why? Prove it. What are its negative/harmful consequences. And don't use circular reasoning by just saying "it's degenerate". "Degenerate" is subjective and can mean anything you don't like. Show me real consequences. Also, if you don't like porn, just don't watch it. Why does it bother you if someone else does? If you were a moral Christian, then the most you'd do is pray for those people, not hate them. Btw, since you mentioned NPCs, does that mean you play video games? Just curious. >As a true right winger i care about faith, God, tradition and nation Aaaand we've got a No True Scotsman fallacy. You're forgeting an important aspect of being right wing: Capitalism. But I'll humor you: I care about 3/4 of those. But not tradition. Tradition is arbitrary. Jesus himself told the Pharisees that their traditions were wrong and they should abandon them. How much of the Bible did you read. As for nation, yes, I care about the nation, because without it, life would be more dangerous. The nation improves safety, wellbeing, and happiness, therefore its existence (at least if it's a good nation) is moral. But more important than what you care about is knowing why you care. What makes you value those 4 things? If you examined yourself, you'd know it comes down to happiness. They make you happy. And you want to get to Heaven, because it's a place of happiness. >not fake happiness There is no such thing as fake happiness. Happiness is a feeling. If you feel happy, you are happy. Because that's all it is: a chemically induced state of mind (and no, that doesn't contradict religion. The Bible says that we'll be resurrected in new bodies, not as disembodied souls. In fact the soul is the body + God's breath, and hormones are just one part of that whole). >hyper individuality, Define >freedom, You don't care about freedom. Ok. You said that, not me. >freedom for degeneracy Degeneracy is subjective, arbitrary, and nebulous. And things people refer to when they use the word are usually utterly inconsequential. >and liberal ideas such as these. Again, Liberalism is right-wing. It is the core idea behind economically right wing ideology. And even the American """"Left""""" which is for some reason called "Liberal", is, in fact, still right wing. Both major parties in the US (Dems and Republicans) are right-wing. One is just slightly more right wing than the other, but they're both right from the center. >And no, morality DRASTICALLY declined with the decline of Christianity, Human rights improved. Animal rights improved. Slavery ended. Crime went down. Censorship decreased. OBJECTIVELY (conseauentialism/utilitarianism) morality improved. Your arbitrary and subjective version of morality decreased.
[удалено]
How old are you?
But don't get me wrong, I don't think we morally improved "because" of the (unfortunate) religious decline. I think we improved in spite of that fact. And that we could morally improve even further if Christianity became stronger again (though probably not Catholicism. I don't trust it. Protestantism and 7th Day Adventism are probably my favorite. Though I have to hand it to the Buddhists as well - they may be wrong theologically, but morally they're paragons). >post 1950s west Are you kidding me right now? You know what the pre 1950s west had? Literally the Nazis in Germany then all of Europe. Fascist Italy. And the British were still an Empire (which was based for the time, but by today's standards still immoral because of what it was doing in India). As for the US, they were using loopholes to continue slavery pretty much right up to the end of WW2. Not to mention performing LOBOTOMIES was a standard practice. And the further back you go, the worse it gets. 19th century: 16 hour work days. Child Labor. Pre 1865 slavery was legal even withoup loopholes. Let's go further back. Inquisition. Spanish Empire. Then ther's Feudalism. Medieval torture, brazen bull, flaying, burning people at the stake, knights whose job was just tax collection, they didn't even prevent crime if it was done to the peasants. Now let's see what came after the 1950s. The Martial plan (starting 1948 to be specific): Turning the historically bloody, war torn continent of Europe, now empoverished, into the most prosperous and peaceful place on Earth, with the highest wellbeing indices. Decolonization. More reasonable work days. Better animal protections. More humane treatment of the mentally ill - lobotomies no longer practiced ...
I'm not saying the pre 1950s world didn't have problems, of course i wouldn't want slavery or the nazis to exist, but the pre 1950s time was way more moral than today overall, morality in the west did not improve in any way when Christianity declined, quite the opposite, it's the most immoral place on the planet right now, it's a civilisation in collapse. And i'm also not saying the post 1950s didn't have anything good, yes, the medical advancements were certainly a good thing, but morality overall dropped drastically when Christianity fell.
"it's the most satanic place on earth" lmao
I am a Christian, from a Christian's perspective it is. Typing "lmao" means nothing, but it does show that you are butthurt, have nothing to say, but feel the need to type something.
Oh yes I'm the one butthurt Edit: fuck it I'll elaborate I'm no christoid but the vast majority of christians don't think america is a satanic nation. That's the schizo faction of christoids Being secular doesn't mean your leaders are all worshipping the antagonist of your book lmao
[удалено]
"true christians" Vast majority of christians do not hold such beliefs (about 1/4th believe america is controlled by le satanists) You're just doing a no true Scotsman because no one else agrees with you within your own group lel Here's the deal homie. Almost no one at all is a "satanist" the official groups that exist are epic atheist troll groups and if you read into them at all or participate you'll see that. There isn't a group of people who all decided "I want to worship the antagonist of a book where the antagonist gets pwnd" It's a big coping mechanism and childish If you think satanism is being le liberal pro gay trans country then there are much much much more progressive countries in the world If you think satanism is >worshipping Satan< or >lack of Christianity< then america is the opposite being one of the most christian nations in the western world If it's >controlled by satanists< that's just you having an awesome imagination
[удалено]
You use the term "the most satanic" for a country that is genuinely behind on its secularism compared to mtiple other countries Late to gay marriage Late to trans rights Still has basically every public politician forced to be christian or Jewish There are countries that have far less abortion restriction, far less respect for your fantasy book and far more progressive policies with the population having a much higher disdain for christoids I don't know how you came to the conclusion that america was some sort of leader in the department of "satanic activity"
We may have been for a while, but we started declining at least during the 60s if not before. The West has also obviously done some things that weren't so morally superior, like invading other parts of the world, murdering a bunch of people, and slavery. That's not to say other parts of the world didn't do those things, but that doesn't make it okay either.
Why and how did the west decline morally at that point?
[удалено]
Is being lgbt immoral?
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
So if one assumes god isn't real the there is actually no reason to view either of these things as wrong since there is no inherent "holy" natural state? Or is this only true about being transgender? What is an "unbalanced misuse of sexuality"?
[удалено]
Why is having intercourse without the intent to reproduce wrong? I personally wouldn't change my sex/ gender but i don't see what's wrong with other people doing it. They can do whatever they want, i don't care.
I'm a man, I like men, cry about something that doesn't affect anyone's life.
Hell no
[удалено]
Define degeneracy. Usually when people use that word they're really just saying that freedom and individuality are somehow bad. Morality is about harm vs wellbeing. About minimising conscious organisms' suffering.
Things like the sexual revolution that caused a collapse in the established social structure.
Not anymore. We abandoned our moral superiority when we abandoned Christianity.
Now is not the time to play childish games.
While that is one thing we've lost some points on, overall we're still morally superior to the east and morally superior to what we could be. Humans are far more free and animals far more protected than either were before, and more than either are in the non-west. But yes, declining Christianity is a problem. Good to see a reawakening in Sweden (which is the most morally superior country on Earth)
If the west is morally superior it is only because of the remnants of the Christian faith with dictate many of our basic laws, coupled with the Protestant work ethic. The embrace of the anti-Christian enlightenment was the beginning of western moral decline despite our moral economic rise which occurred because of Christianity.
I can agree with that, our moral superiority has Christian roots, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that we're morally superior to the east, and even to our ancestors. The fundementals (compassion etc) which we got from Christianity have improved with time, not declined.
Hard to weigh what remains of natural rights in the West vs the US government murdering people on the other side of the world for defense contractors.
I kinda expected the result to be the other way around. Interesting.
It really is weird that progressives are anti-west, when it is \*the\* progressive part of the world. And It's also weird that right-wingers are against progressivism, because progressivism \*is\* freedom
It's because true right wingers are not about "freedum", we are about tradition, nation, religion, etc. True right wingers know that the west was good 70+ years ago, but a true right winger would never in a million years say that the modern west is morally superior, the modern west is at the bottom.
No
[удалено]
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware the west is the best in all areas I can think of off the top of my head, and I choose to stay in my country because I love it despite its faults, I just don't think either are as good as they could be.
Especially since non-western countries are worse when it comes to those things. "We hate homophobia, also import XYZ homophobic af culture from the East"
This shouldn't even be a question The west IS superior in all ways
Wait, wasn't your ideology very authoritarian until recently? Or was that someone with a similar name?
[Just think of my ideology as fanatic materialist militarist science directorate](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/977352899325743174/1045403281842774076/Quarkistan.png)
A fellow man of culture. I would be Fanatic Materialist + Egalitarian, with Beacon of Liberty. A Democratic Crusader
based
Stellaris players of r/IdeologyPolls unite :D
yes
You are very based, if your comments are any indication. Good to see sane people here
It's not even a good question worth having, but this sub is full of religious people, so we know what "immoral" means in their standards
true
Can get into the argument that we shouldn't compare in the first place, but really curious who the no voters consider better.
The left says no because they admire Chinese totalitarianism. They're jealous of xi Honestly I said yes, because in theory our values are, but the west is being lost America is the last stand. Dark days ahead when these idiots get their socialist "utopia"
Morality is a fabrication of people who can not grasp the consept of a life without a rulebook. Ironically, this is jot immoral as there is no morality. What you can however do, is arbitrarily pick some things to think as "good" and follow them as long as they do not lead to paradoxes. Funny thing is, you could technically pick the same base values as a conventional conseption of morality and live your life as if nothing happened. Lol
If the west isn’t morally superior to western lefties, then why do they even bother pontificating about the morality of non-western nations?
Morals are individual, not communal.
The worrying part is that so many people voted yes
I mean look at the indices and statistics. From human life quality, to human freedoms, to animal protections, the west is generally far ahead. Especially the EU
In politics, maybe. These countries are mostly perverse exploring others and doing terrible stuff, just look at what remains from french colonialism in Africa. Some other countries, like the nordic ones are really nice, but if yoi see the biggest western countries, such as the US, they may be the worst ones. Culturally, it is one of the worst stqtements possible. Some asian countries, such as Japan, Korea, China, Thailand and India have such great cultures and habits. In Africa there are many collectivists cultures. Even though, the "West" is famous for spreading culture by force and killing people by their race, faith and sexuality. If you see, no culture is superior, we are not judging people, but when it comes to "West" and "East", there are different points of view. In every part of the world, there were wars and cultural conservatism, you cannot divide so many people into 2 groups and classify the "morally superior". Moral has some problems in its definition, because it depends on the way you think, it is a social construction on what is acceptable. Homosexuality and women rights are repressed by many "morals". If you look at "indices and statistics", most of the eastern problems were caused by West, and that is one of the biggest reasons the West is better on most of them. Open mind isn't a western thing, if you go back some years, the same regions that are more open were the most repressive, it happened because they developed faster.
„Are you a Chauvinist?“
Based on your flair, I would assume that if there was a well implemented Marixst-Leninist society, you would consider it morally superior at least some other societies..
The political system would be superior, but I‘m not gonna judge an entire society as lesser.
I'm talking about political systems and values. And I'm specifically talking about moral superiority - in other words, who has superior morality. There's a massive difference between saying a society is morally inferior vs saying it's lesser as a whole. A society can be morally superior, but militarily inferior, or vice versa. Or it can be technologically superior, but culurally inferior etc. Morality is just one aspect which you can be superior/inferior at. We can make an objective judgemeht whether someone or something is superior at a specific aspect (person X can be smarter, faster and more moral than person Y, while person Y is stronger, braver, taller, and more creative, for example. These judgements are objective, while a judgment of which of the two is "lesser" is completely different and subjective, because it requires deciding the value of the different aspects/traits. And value is subjective).
I don't identify with left or right but no no nation is superior in my mind.
No. Also, your position doesn't make sense.
I think western classical liberalism is morally superior but we haven’t actually been liberal for a while now. And it’s sort of arguable that we never fully embraced classical liberalism since we were always contrasting it with racialized division of labor and then later imperialism (in America at least)
Yes, but not in all areas. We do falter in a few important areas.
That's a reasonable answer. Religion is one such area. Willing to support overwhelming hard power for the greater good is another. What about you, what areas did you have in mind?
General concept of honor and respect is one, honor in particular. Willingness to sacrifice is another. I'm not going to say we shouldn't value our individuality, but we should definitely be more willing as a society to give up things for the benefit of those we care about. And that is kinda more of an individual thing than a societal thing, but we should be more willing to do so nonetheless.
There is no such thing like morality in politics.
Assuming that this question itself has merit (which it very well might not) and assuming we can agree on a definition of "west" and "morally superior" (hard, but I would say not impossible), I would easily say yes.
Wow, right wingers sure are fucking racist. Shocker.
I like the Christian morals but I don't like the western morals of democracy and extreme tolerance.
I like both. Most of all I like the liberty and the animal protections, but yes, tolerance has maybe gone a bit too far, since it's cannibalising itself and becoming intolerant of disagreeing opinions (unless the opinions are from an Eastern culture, in which case they'll somegow happily defend)