Over the course of both threads one of the main contentions was the idea of universal rights. In this case, feminism was used as an example of, partly inadvertently, providing a rationale for liberal interventions. The notion of universality, the concept of east/west, and frameworks such socialism, nationalism, and religion as driving forces of society were thus explored and questioned throughout the thread.
As a starter we could use TrueLeft's four points from one of his posts:
1) If there is a conflict where we must choose a side then go by absolute
morals. And I argue we must ALWAYS choose a side, at least implicitly.
2)
Absolute morals don't work, so we must go by relative morals. Namely by
cost/benefit analysis of any particular action, rather than a general category
of actions (for instance, it's uselss to speak of "intervention", we must
sepcify for any given intervention where, how, for whome, and under precisely
what circumstances so a general rule regarding "interventions" is
pointless).
3) So we now need to decide on who judges the costs and the
benefits. Ms. Almahadin correctly says that it can't be "us" alone, we need to
ask the people who are actually involved.
4) But the inherent problem is that
the people directly involved simply don't agree. If they did then there would be
no conflict and no need for intervention in the first place!
Comments welcome.
