> Anglo cultures always seem to be the ones that take the moral lead around the world, leaving others to follow their example
This seems to be my lived experience, so I would say it's true. It would be interesting to see facts/figures on this. But then how to you quantify morality? The fact is, from an "Anglo culture" perspective we are leading with morality because we live in this culture so that's what we believe morality is, and it is the others' that have it wrong.
Girls being executed for not following religious clothing, or female genital mutilation probably seem as the correct and moral thing to do within those cultures that practise it.
I would like to think that objectively I personally find the Anglo set of morality the correct one as it maximises individual liberal freedoms and happiness for people.
I don't think the 'west' should fund conferences in countries that have anti LGBT laws which would be considered hate crimes here. Taking that further, it means we shouldn't deal with Arab countries or some Asian countries. But we look pass our version of morality to do trade and commerce on a global scale. We sell weapons to dictators.
Not an easy issue to think about or discuss from an objective viewpoint, if one can even exist.
> Not an easy issue to think about or discuss from an objective viewpoint, if one can even exist.
Certainly so, if one has blinders to the history of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Of course a global empire is also going to export it's culture and values, and these include things like privatization of public resources and other impositions. As far as western domination goes, historically the missionaries handle the preaching of values, while the armies, lawyers and accountants keep the population in line.
Now, we have concepts like RTP ("right to protect") which is repeatedly and selectively weaponized to legitimize invasions and regime change over "human rights violations" while those same violations e.g. in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere are tolerated or even encouraged.
This isn't to deny that some freedoms in the West are hard to find elsewhere. But there are also numerous examples of people having more practical freedom than in say the US, for instance, the freedom to get quality healthcare without a job and without going broke, which works way better in e.g. Turkey, despite it's bad political situation.
In the case of Africa you have the legacy of colonialism to contend with. Africa isn't inherently predisposed to dictators and populists, it's a symptom of the dire circumstances of the various states which the West has a lot to answer for, in terms of maintaining corrupt structures, as well as continuing to reap the gains of resources mined in those states etc.
In sum, the West can share a great deal of the blame for the poor situation culturally, politically etc in a number of states with fragile/bad political situations in Africa, so to blindly assert "gee, it seems like the Anglosphere is the only folks who care about human rights" without considering this reality is naive at best.
This seems to be my lived experience, so I would say it's true. It would be interesting to see facts/figures on this. But then how to you quantify morality? The fact is, from an "Anglo culture" perspective we are leading with morality because we live in this culture so that's what we believe morality is, and it is the others' that have it wrong.
Girls being executed for not following religious clothing, or female genital mutilation probably seem as the correct and moral thing to do within those cultures that practise it.
I would like to think that objectively I personally find the Anglo set of morality the correct one as it maximises individual liberal freedoms and happiness for people.
I don't think the 'west' should fund conferences in countries that have anti LGBT laws which would be considered hate crimes here. Taking that further, it means we shouldn't deal with Arab countries or some Asian countries. But we look pass our version of morality to do trade and commerce on a global scale. We sell weapons to dictators.
Not an easy issue to think about or discuss from an objective viewpoint, if one can even exist.