[Quantum]

Why are liberals strongly concerned with the human rights of those who are oppressed by dictators overseas, especially in the Middle East or China? What benefit does it bring to the liberal personally or the average person if some schmuck in the is under the thumb of some authoritarian government, unless deposing the dictator gives the country access to resources or better foreign relations?

Perhaps it's motivated by wealthy liberals having nothing better than do than engage in petty hobbies such as human rights promotion.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no benefit to me. I do it anyways because it is the morally good thing to do.

I could just as easily ask why others refuse to condemn oppression simply because it does not occur in their own backyard.

[Daktoria]

Humanitarian warmongering kills off domestic social rejects and gives them something to do.

Yes, elitists have petty hobbies. They just don't want to share.

[Stranger]

I'm pretty sure you're aware that people normally care most about family, then friends, followed by countrymen, then others. How far this 'radius of caring' extends is simply a question of morality.

[Wolfman]

Why are liberals strongly concerned with the human rights of those who are oppressed by dictators overseas, especially in the Middle East or China? What benefit does it bring to the liberal personally or the average person if some schmuck in the is under the thumb of some authoritarian government, unless deposing the dictator gives the country access to resources or better foreign relations?

Aside from "it's the right thing to do", South Korea is a good example. We helped fight off the authoritarian and human rights repressive North, they are now a free country with Capitalism and Democracy, and we get cool products from them, like Samsung phones. It was the right thing to do in the first place, and it has helped improve the global economy.

[Soixante-Retard]

Why do liberals care about democracy & human rights abroad?

What "liberals" are you talking about?

Liberalism is about peace and love

I don't want to see fellow humans being murdered and denied the freedoms that people in the US, for example, take for granted. That doesn't mean I favor the neo-conservative way of bringing liberal democracy to countries via tanks and bombings. I prefer to see a bottom-up "organic" approach similar to the Velvet Revolution in the former Czechoslovakia.

Not to mention the benefits of trade that reap to me and my trading partner if both of us are secure from government terror...


[youtube]VZUNvcU93UM[/youtube]

[SpaciousBox]

Basically what others have said. I think it's also related to social values and the sort of upbringing you have. Many of us are taught at a young age not to be selfish, and to think of others as much as you do yourself. This creates a healthy society for community interaction, but also creates a feeling of duty to your fellow humans. This is seen throughout the Liberal agenda; human rights, equality under the law, welfare etc. The entire philosophical base is about what is "right" - which in the liberal case is usually judged through the harm principle. Unlike those of the right, we tend to judge a situation based on empathy, and our duty to those in situations we would not tolerate ourselves. In short; a Liberal is happy to fight for others freedoms with almost as much vigour as they might fight for their own.

[SE23]

Humanitarian warmongering kills off domestic social rejects and gives them something to do.

Yes, elitists have petty hobbies. They just don't want to share.

Pretty much summed it up.

[Gletkin]

Aside from "it's the right thing to do", South Korea is a good example. We helped fight off the authoritarian and human rights repressive North, they are now a free country with Capitalism and Democracy, and we get cool products from them, like Samsung phones. It was the right thing to do in the first place, and it has helped improve the global economy.

Actually we lucked out.
Originally, South Korea was a shit-poor dictatorship that wasn't above torturing and massacring its own people either.
BUT the South Korean people made the most of whatever chances they had. Worked their asses off, built up their country, ignored the DPRK bogeyman and elbowed out the tyrants who ruled them...even arresting, trying and (initially) sentencing them to death.

South Korea improved.....by a huge margin. North Korea didn't.

[Wolfman]

Originally, South Korea was a shit-poor dictatorship that wasn't above torturing and massacring its own people either.

...

South Korea improved.....by a huge margin. North Korea didn't.

I was aware of this. The case of Korea is really a great argument against central planning and authoritarian governments considering they were the same peoples, starting with the same basic government, but adopted very different government and economic system, and ended up in almost laughably different places.

[Quantum]

What "liberals" are you talking about?

The 'let's bomb the fuck out of every evil dictator that is a strategic threat or possesses natural resources whilst ignoring other dictators' type liberal that you see in this forum, aka neocons, not your kind of liberal. These jarring guys always call for the bombing of 'evil men' like Assad, Gaddafi and Milosevic whenever they are committing a 'war crime' or a 'crime against humanity'. As if the world owes a favour to those who are under the jackboot of these men.

[Wolfman]

The 'let's bomb the fuck out of every evil dictator that is a strategic threat or possesses natural resources whilst ignoring other dictators' type liberal that you see in this forum, aka neocons, not your kind of liberal.

So, Liberal in the most incredibly broad sense of the word that the vast majority of people will not even associate as Liberal?

[Daktoria]

So, Liberal in the most incredibly broad sense of the word that the vast majority of people will not even associate as Liberal?

You haven't studied neoconservatism much, have you?

The New York Intellectuals have tight ties with feminism and multiculturalism, and they operate with Zionist intentions.

The reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan is because people are just trying to waste the labor supply away instead of assimilating it into society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Intellectuals

[foxdemon]

You haven't studied neoconservatism much, have you?

The New York Intellectuals have tight ties with feminism and multiculturalism, and they operate with Zionist intentions.

The reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan is because people are just trying to waste the labor supply away instead of assimilating it into society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Intellectuals

Interesting stuff. I must admit I am ignorant of the origin of America neo-conserativism also. The exposure of the NY mob shows how neo-conservatism came about. I was initially suprised by the link with the Frankfurt school, but on reflection this seems consistent with my current skeptical view of Habermas and his mob.

For SE23, check out the wiki link offered by Dakota, follow up on the Frankfurt school with special attention to those people from that school who sheltered in the USA during WWII, and also this general wiki overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[qeddeq]

I think the answer to this was provided by dog pants when he said it was the morally correct thing to do. However, it is almost never the correct thing to do. Even if you agree that the conditions in the nation are bad it doesn't follow that you ought to intervene militarily. It's a question of means and ends. Liberals are thoughtless: they fancy that the best means to employ for a given end is to "do something". This is invariant in their opinion. There is no thoughtfulness about whether inaction is preferable to action. For example, action may only make the situation worse. Another lack of thoughtfulness can be seen in the black and white thinking about the situation, that there is no grey in it that might make it a morally ambiguous situation. When we are not clear, we oppose action. This is something liberals don't get.
Now there are exceptions: when the historically magnificent USSR invaded nations they always improved them. Health care, literacy, almost all the measures of quality of life were improved when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. So many comrades died there for the sake of bringing improvement to the lives of Afghanis. There is no USSR today and when the US invades they bring disaster, conflict, waste, strife, greed, inequality and Macdonald's.

[Spin]

Liberalism has always been a rather intolerant ideology, ironically enough, at an international level. Liberalism is more concerned with the rights of man above the rights of states. Indeed crucially for liberals the legitimacy of a state is based upon its respect of the rights and endorsement of its citizens. A state which does not have the endorsement of the general populace is therefore considered to be legitimate and therefore liberals feel somewhat uneasy about the state.

[Ummon]

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-generosity ... gists.html

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Strange question. We even care about fictional characters and animals on TV and in books. That movie directors and writers can make you care about something that doesn't exist should tell you all you need to know about empathy.

Empathy may be overshadowed by other emotions such as rivalry, fear, anger, etc. though.

[Beren]

Because we all want to spread our memes as far as we can.

[Quantum]

I don't like when people necropost. Leave it be.