Saudi Arabia beheads female activist in public (unverified)

[Mopsus]

Nationalism is a doctrine based on cultural relativism.

How many times have you heard a right Nationalist say something like "if you love Islam so much move to the middle East!"? To the nationalist, there is no such thing as universal values and the borders of a country are impermeable  Barrie's from criticism.

What's wrong with wanting to protect your own (western) culture from being damaged or destroyed? Leave the beheadings in the M.E. and work for a long-term new enlightenment of Islam (they did have a rational Golden Age once, maybe they can again).

Because I'm not a cultural relativist who is ok with people being beheaded in any country?

If you’re against beheadings, you’ll want to protect your country from the influence of beheaders, while encouraging anti-beheaders in other countries. “Actually, conservatives are the REAL postmodernists” isn’t going to catch on.

[Mopsus]

If you’re against beheadings, you’ll want to protect your country from the influence of beheaders, while encouraging anti-beheaders in other countries. “Actually, conservatives are the REAL postmodernists” isn’t going to catch on.

And if you're a nationalist, you have to respect "national cultures" and that different people's have different ethics, deserve different standards of human rights etc. You're not allowed to criticise other countries because of the stupid nonsense that is "sovereignty", something dreamt up by national elites that enjoy exploiting their captive populations without criticism.

I don’t think it’s that people deserve different standards of human rights, but that people are best organized according to the ethical system they consent to; even if that ethical system seems morally bankrupt, trying to force a different one on them is necessarily going to make you a tyrant. It just makes practical sense to focus on human rights within your own community - and that implies that you would be wary of outsiders whose values differ from yours.

[Mopsus]

Consent is meaningless and immeasurable in such autocratic and repressive societies. The 'tyranny' of the liberator is subjectively but definitely better than the real tyranny of the oppressor. Some values shouldn't be tolerated, especially when they infringe on the rights of others.

I’ll grant that nations with the means to do so ought to intervene in order to put a stop to genocide or some similar humanitarian disaster, but are you seriously suggesting that NATO should invade Saudi Arabia and imprison its royal family?

[Mopsus]

I’ll grant that nations with the means to do so ought to intervene in order to put a stop to genocide or some similar humanitarian disaster, but are you seriously suggesting that NATO should invade Saudi Arabia and imprison its royal family?

Morally and ideally speaking, yes. There are of course pragmatic concerns, but they must be separated from the moral concerns so to not lose our moral compass to political necessity, as so many have.

Ideally, the House of Saud would be deposed by its own subjects.