#universal values

Universal values are principles and beliefs that are commonly regarded as fundamental and applicable across various cultures and societies. While there may be variations in the way these values are expressed or emphasized in different cultures, they generally serve as a foundation for shared ethical and moral standards. Some universal values include:

Compassion: The value of compassion involves showing kindness, empathy, and concern for the suffering or well-being of others. It is a fundamental value in many religions and ethical systems.

Justice: Justice entails treating individuals fairly and impartially, upholding their rights, and ensuring that they receive what they deserve. It is a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide.

Equality: Equality emphasizes the principle that all individuals, regardless of their background, should have equal opportunities, rights, and treatment. It is a core value in the pursuit of social justice.

Freedom: Freedom encompasses the idea that individuals should have the right to make choices, express themselves, and live without undue restrictions, as long as it does not harm others. It's a key value in democratic societies.

Honesty: Honesty involves being truthful and transparent in one's actions, words, and intentions. It forms the basis for trust and integrity in personal and professional relationships.

Respect: Respect entails treating others with consideration, dignity, and acknowledgment of their worth as individuals. It underpins healthy interpersonal relationships.

Dignity: Dignity is the inherent worth and value of each person, regardless of their circumstances. It involves recognizing and upholding the humanity of others.

Tolerance: Tolerance is the acceptance and respect of differences in beliefs, cultures, and lifestyles. It promotes peaceful coexistence and understanding among diverse groups.

Empathy: Empathy involves the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It fosters compassion and effective communication in relationships.

Responsibility: Responsibility means taking ownership of one's actions and decisions, being accountable for their consequences, and fulfilling one's obligations to others and society.

Cooperation: Cooperation emphasizes working together collaboratively to achieve common goals. It is essential for social, economic, and political progress.

Environmental Stewardship: Recognizing the importance of protecting the environment for current and future generations is becoming increasingly important as a universal value. It involves responsible and sustainable use of natural resources.

Peace: Peace involves the absence of conflict, violence, and war. It is a fundamental value for the well-being and prosperity of societies.

Solidarity: Solidarity emphasizes mutual support and unity among individuals and communities, especially in times of hardship or adversity.

Education: Access to education and the pursuit of knowledge are universal values that empower individuals and contribute to personal and societal development.

The world is indeed a colorful place with a diverse range of perceptions, ideas, and religious and cultural beliefs. These differences are largely due to the unique environments in which people live. While these differences are what make the world such an interesting and dynamic place, they can also lead to misunderstandings and conflicts when we try to impose our own universal values on people…

“Left unspoken but implied in this argument, as in other international uses of rights as dynamite, was the necessary concomitant of pushing universal values on the country - the destruction of traditional Afghan cultures primarily through explosive outside intervention rather than gradual indigenous processes.”

These are the words of Clifford Bob in his excellent, and extraordinary, book "Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019)".

Both the Soviet Union and America used (women's) rights as weapons - in this case, as dynamite - to "liberate" a backward, Islamic country from the  clutches of male tyrants.

The article's disquieting preference for one dynamite - that of the Soviet Union - rings alarm bells. The underlying reasoning appears to be that it is perfectly legitimate to invade a Muslim country to promote rights and universal values.

Unfortunately, the Universal Individual has to be created by means of the transmission of Universal Values. The Chinese Communist Party epitomises everything that is inconsistent with these alleged values (as do the Pogonocracies). “For the party’s swaggering, authoritarian ways are a challenge to the universal values which help to define the West.” Thus thundered The Economist on the thirtieth anniversary of  the suppression of the protests at Tiananmen Square. It had to concede that the current president of the United States was not exactly gung-ho about universal values. Joe Biden, a liberal,  would set things right. 

Universal Values logically imply a Universal Language - a sort of moral-cum-legal Esperanto. The problem - and, to its champions the beauty - of Esperanto is that it comes without cultural baggage. Raised in an ethnically divided and violent part of Poland, then under Russia, Ludovic Zamenhof, its founder, sought a common language that would facilitate understanding. Himself a polyglot, he realised that no existing language would do. Associated with a particular country, race or culture, every language lacked the neutrality any international language would need to be accepted. In addition, as any teacher of language (such as yours truly) knows, every language is shot through with illogicalities and exceptions which seem to serve no purpose other than to frustrate the would-be learner as much as possible (so creating jobs for teachers). A culture-less, easy-to-learn language was the desideratum and so the new language was born. In 1887, at the age of 28, Zamenhof went public with a 40-page brochure under the pseudonym “Doctoro Esperanto”. What many excited people started calling "Dr Esperanto's International Language" was soon abbreviated to "Esperanto".

Zamenhof's "neutral interlanguage", said the manual, had been chosen because it was "not identifiable with any alliance or ideology" and was "far easier to learn and use than any national language".

To people who argue that learning Esperanto is pointless because it has no culture, an ardent enthusiast argues forcefully back. "That's actually one of the arguments against the spread of American English," he says. "Because it comes with a culture, it's not neutral. It's impossible to accept the American language in isolation, which is one of the causes of the Middle East problems. And, anyway, what is culture? If you're talking about literature, Esperanto has a huge literature of both original texts and translations."

No doubt that’s a rather narrow definition of culture, and, at any rate, “something is lost in translation”. Besides, as a learned Yale philosophy professor asked, “Who is the Milton of Esperanto?”

The Guardian article notes: “In 1965, William Shatner starred in Incubus, the first film to be made in the language. Conrad Hall, the cinematographer on that project, went on to shoot American Beauty. But what became of Esperanto? Neither the UN nor the EU has adopted it as a working language, and not a single multinational corporation or charity employs it in its day-to-day dealings.”

It is reported that there are more than 100,000 Esperanto speakers, making it the most successful of the artificial languages. More than 30,000 books have been published in the language. 

The war against Afghanistan began ostensibly as a hunt for one man, and quickly morphed into a human rights campaign. Within weeks, the mightiest nation began to emphasise its goal as one to instil women’s rights in one of the poorest places on the planet (​Clifford ​Bob, Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019)​ ​p139 - 147). True, the rights talk was part camouflage to divert attention from the expenditure of so much blood and treasure, but it was more than that. Women’s rights was a tool to pursue three more basic purposes. 

First, it was hoped that the plight of Afghan women would be improved. Officials and NGOs, perhaps sincerely, felt that women had been victimised by the Taliban. Second, policymakers and activists, although more covertly, aimed to dismantle Afghan society, using the catalyst of women’s rights. By forcibly incorporating women into the police, government, education and other institutions, Afghan society, according to this more hidden agenda, would be saved from itself. Third, women’s rights there would improve security for Western states that promoted these rights at a distance. “As this chapter’s concept of rights as dynamite would expect, the powerful foreign purveyors of women’s rights transformed themselves into victims.” The “Hillary Doctrine”, as it came to be known, was the argument that only by bringing women’s rights and other associated liberal values to Afghanistan, and, no doubt, to the rest of the world, could liberal societies ensure their own national security. 

“...a serenely unified, nationalist Chinese autocracy, unequivocally backed by its people, would be a terror to the world.”

I LOVE ❤️ these words.

Which country today is “a terror to the world”?

The editor dreads that China might become like that country.