|
Though I am loath to accept cultural relativism at face value, I tend to agree that for the most part "liberal" countries should not interfere.
There are very few situations in which I believe interference would make any sort of important or long-lasting change, one of which, as already mentioned, is genocide or ethnic cleansing. We can also make huge changes if we help the economies of struggling countries that can't develop further because of their lack of both resources and education.
The scary thing about trying to enact any sort of change, however, is how we decide who makes these decisions. I observe that most "liberations" tend to be fueled not by a sense of moral responsibility but rather by economic and strategic motives. I say it is impossible to responsibly create change in "illiberal" countries without first setting our motives straight.
Supposing we set that right, I still believe that "conquest", as another tfp poster put it, is the absolute last resort way of dealing with such issues. It is also the most irresponsible, as it destroys the infrastructure of that country, making it harder in the long run to get the new more "liberal" country up and running.
I would much rather see "liberal" countries try to change "immoral" practices over time through education and improving limiting factors like the economy. Diplomatic improvements that come under the banner of help rather than that of imposed values will both stand longer and be more efficient.
Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to set a good example every once in a while.
|