So. This might be a bit of a light satire on casuistry.
I'm approaching this from the standpoint of moral relativism, from a standpoint of cultural pluralism. The principle that we must respect each other's culture's beliefs is one of the chief dogmatic moral assertions of our time. Correct? Yes: correct. We can't force our beliefs on others. Nor can they force theirs on us.
The only exception to this principle would be cultural beliefs that espouse the rightness of forcing one's beliefs on others - which on the face of it, would be benighted, morally bankrupt, self-evidently flawed. I think we can all agree with that! Right? Pretty straightforward. Pretty easy to apply.
So as I understand it, by and large: the view of the indigenous peoples of North America towards property was pretty much that: they didn't own any of the land. Right?
Of course, it would be more accurate to say that they believed no one owned any of the land. But we're talking in an atmosphere of cultural pluralism. One culture can't speak for another. What one culture believes doesn't override what another believes.
Now, also as I understand it, by and large, the view of the invasive, Western-European derived white man's culture at the time as regards property was that: they owned all of the land.
Given the two dominant cultural views here, there appears to be no conflicting claim. So from a standpoint of moral relativism and cultural pluralism, it appears there can be no moral objection to manifest destiny.
Right? Right?
I'm approaching this from the standpoint of moral relativism, from a standpoint of cultural pluralism. The principle that we must respect each other's culture's beliefs is one of the chief dogmatic moral assertions of our time. Correct? Yes: correct. We can't force our beliefs on others. Nor can they force theirs on us.
The only exception to this principle would be cultural beliefs that espouse the rightness of forcing one's beliefs on others - which on the face of it, would be benighted, morally bankrupt, self-evidently flawed. I think we can all agree with that! Right? Pretty straightforward. Pretty easy to apply.
So as I understand it, by and large: the view of the indigenous peoples of North America towards property was pretty much that: they didn't own any of the land. Right?
Of course, it would be more accurate to say that they believed no one owned any of the land. But we're talking in an atmosphere of cultural pluralism. One culture can't speak for another. What one culture believes doesn't override what another believes.
Now, also as I understand it, by and large, the view of the invasive, Western-European derived white man's culture at the time as regards property was that: they owned all of the land.
Given the two dominant cultural views here, there appears to be no conflicting claim. So from a standpoint of moral relativism and cultural pluralism, it appears there can be no moral objection to manifest destiny.
Right? Right?
Comments
And if you need me to explain why, well hell. That's all I can say. Hell.
It took me a minute to figure that out. I was focusing on manifest destiny! That's the wrong half of the problem.