For "we" are civilised, are we not? It is always "they" who are uncivilised.
-IainB
+1
Good points.
"Civilised" always seems to mean "behaving the way
*we* think people
*should* behave", with the appropriate converse, "uncivilised" meaning "behaving the way
*we* think people
*should not* behave".
e.g.
The French are mostly civilized, except for the way they let their dogs poop everywhere.
The Koreans are mostly civilized, except for the way they eat dogs.
(BTW - Dog meat is pretty good. Kind of like how duck is to chicken, dog is to beef.)
Or more generally:
The WHOEVER are mostly civilized, except for the way they DO SOMETHING.
If you buy into Wittgenstein, then it's all just arbitrary anyways, and utterly meaningless, or perhaps trivial. (We then live in a moral vacuum and Nietzsche is right about the 'overman/superman/ubermensche'. They determine what is right/wrong, and impose their views on the rest of society, which is pretty damn accurate to describe the way things are right now.)
I think Jesus had it right:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
If we take the completion/predicate/object/whatever of "doing" to mean "what I/you/they want". i.e. What "you would have others do unto you" is "what you want", and so "do unto others" == "do what others want done to them".
I don't think the current systems in most places are set up to actually help people grow and achieve. Until that happens, I can't say as I can fault those people (with limited options) for being angry.
