>>17
You forget to remember that profit is good. If you profit you are doing good. The wealth of coorporations comes directly from their ability to produce high quality goods and services cheaply and the purchasing power of their customers. Peace allows development and the creation of a skilled low-crime labour force with which to fulfil these 2 demands and create profit. As you can see profit does good for the workforce and they reward shareholders by working and buying in order to increase the value of their shares.
>>19
>>22
>>23
Culture consists of 10000s of different ideas, thus are redundant. With this in mind you can see that cultures are free to adopt liberty, capitalism and human rights as part of their core values with little effect on unrelated ideas. They can then capitalise on their ideas and improve the value of their culture. Chop suey, tacos and curry for instance.
>>20
Indeed the idea that certain cultures are infallible and should never be changed is absurd. Though I don't see how
>>19 meant this.
>>22
>>23
I referred you to my response to
>>19 as I believe that there is no such thing as culture oriented philosophy or science. You are either correct or incorrect as it is apparent that the laws of physics do not change from one place to another. Eastern philosophy and western philosophy are pointless classifications, philosophy should be judged by it's merits and not it's origin. Ethics in philosophy across the globe was generally heading towards the same conclusions, if one school of philosophy discovers more than another and then another school of philosophy declared it's culture to be infallible, then when exposed to the school of philosophy that progressed further it will decide not to adopt further progress and will have stunted it's growth. It is illogical.
>>23
Generating consequences for violating laws are the basis for law enforcement across the world for 1000s of years. Violating free speech can have negative consequences for the criminal, if sufficient non-corrupt law enforcement is in place. You stated the obvious when you said that human rights were not adopted by succesful civilisation that were stable for long periods of time, however the civilisations you stated were tyrannic and treated their citizens horrifically in some cases. Supporting human rights is not like supporting a religion (like buddhism) because you think it has divine properties, supporting human rights is common sense because without it you end up with tyranny and enormous amounts of sufferring. It could also be argued that socieites always hold some form of moral codes, honour codes and human rights in lesser forms, not just outright universal declarations. The aristocracy for instance frowned apon killing or disempowerring other aristocrats because if they acted like savages then untrustworthy upstarts from the lower ranks whom they have no control over could rise up and take the place of the aristocrat they removed.
>>23
>>24
I will not respond to
>>24 as
>>24 used profanity. This response serves as an example of a lesser moral codes, which will result in the reduction of bigotry and an increase in the logic and free flow of discussion!
>>25
Human rights preserve liberty. Universability is a logical step up from collectivism. There is a problem that if everyone around you responds when someone's liberties are trampled on, you personally don't have to join in and can enjoy the benefits of preserved liberty. This is why we have a law system. I am not the one who accused others of possessing a liberal agenda, but many statements made in this thread appear to be liberal cliches.