The West must assert the dominance of its values

We live in a pretend world. That is, we pretend that the knowledge we have and the morality we follow have been and will be for eternity. But we know that this is not true. People in ancient times and remote regions were just as convinced of the correctness of their views about the world as we are today – and who knows what will apply in the future? None.

That sounds paradoxical. Yet there is no alternative to the as-if world. We cannot escape the shaping of our minds by time and space. We have to be convinced – and absolutely convinced – of the theory of evolution, the conservation laws of physics, Newton’s law of force, Kepler’s law of planetary motion and the calculations of climate researchers until they are not refuted.

A similar pretend mechanism is at work in the field of ethics. We say: human rights are fundamental rights. They apply universally, i.e. for everyone, everywhere. No restriction, such as the ban on torture, can be justified by reference to regional or cultural characteristics. Freedom of expression must not be overridden in favor of certain religious beliefs. The tradition of widow burning, as it is still practiced by the Rajputs in northern India, is to be rejected, as is female genital mutilation in many African and predominantly Muslim countries.

Self-determination and equality are not negotiable

We reject the talk of “human rights imperialism” as foolish, which only serves to secure the white, western dominance of values. As wrong the charge of moral presumption. Physical integrity, freedom of religion and expression, self-determination (including sexual self-determination) and equality are non-negotiable norms.

Nevertheless, these norms have also grown over time. Enlightenment, emancipation, rationalism, the entire liberal order, including democracy and the rule of law, apply, globally and historically, only to small parts of the world and only in a very short period of time in world history. But we also set these norms absolutely and perceive any moral relativism that questions the validity of such a setting as treason.

How does this unconditionality get along with the knowledge that one has historically been involved in human rights violations? Who appears as accuser and accused with what right? Should the French riot loudly about human rights violations in Algeria? Should white Americans complain about the crime rate of black Americans? Should a representative from the Vatican criticize homophobia in Uganda and Nigeria?

The Olympic Stadium in the rainbow colors?

The instrumentalisation of human rights rhetoric is also repulsive. Suddenly, those who actually only want to shout “Foreigners out!” Discover how well the accusation of misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism can be used to raise the mood. Of course, this does not mean that there are not really serious problems in this regard. And doesn’t the look at atrocities in African countries also occasionally serve to distract attention from one’s own colonial past?

Shortly after the dispute over whether the Munich Olympic Stadium should be allowed to shine in the rainbow colors during the European Football Championship game against Hungary, Wolfgang Schäuble said in an interview with “Politico” that Germany should stop teaching its eastern neighbors. “Why do Germans think they can teach the Poles how democracy works?” That is disrespectful, complains the President of the Bundestag, and it deepens the division of Europe.

Disrespectful. This is a harsh judgment, passed on people who oppose discrimination and advocate democracy, the rule of law and sexual self-determination. But doesn’t Schäuble hit a point?

The victors dismembered the body

Now comes an extremely daring leap into the 18th century. That was long ago. The story in question is documented by several diaries of the fellow travelers. It is told by the natural scientist Georg Forster, who was part of the expedition, in his book “Reise um die Welt” (Berlin, 1784).

James Cook was an English navigator and explorer. He made three voyages in the Pacific Ocean on His Majesty’s behalf. His second brought him to New Zealand. There the crew met the Maori tribe.

Here’s what happened: One of the Maori was slain in an internal feud. The victors dismembered the body and partially consumed it. Cook’s third officer bought the man’s head from a Maori and took it on board. Later a couple of Maori came on board. Georg Forster noted the further course:

“They devoured it with the greatest greed”

“As soon as they saw the head, they testified to a great desire for it and indicated by signs that the meat was of excellent taste. (…) But they did not want to eat it raw, but asked to have done it. So it was left to roast a little over the fire in our presence, and no sooner had this happened than the New Zealanders devoured it before our eyes with the greatest greed. “

What is impressive about this story to this day is the sober, matter-of-fact tone with which the discovery team describes the greatest atrocities of indigenous peoples. No trace of outrage. The largely neutral descriptions of the events are followed by discussions about cannibalism, which in this case was apparently not caused by extreme hunger or a lack of meat. You were dealing with cannibals, that couldn’t be helped.

What is your own role, what is your own standard?

There were, of course, different reactions. “Others, on the other hand, were unreasonably bitter at the ogres,” writes Forster, “that they wanted to shoot the New Zealanders all dead, just as if they were right to command the life of a people whose actions were not even for theirs Judge’s seat belonged. “

Forster reflects on your own role and your own standards in this conflict. “We ourselves are no longer cannibals, but we still find it neither cruel nor unnatural to go into the field and break the necks of thousands just to satisfy the ambitions of a prince or the crickets of his mistresses. But isn’t it a prejudice that we disgust the flesh of a slain because we don’t make a conscience about stealing his life? “

The story ends with a rhetorical question, which should be understood as an appeal to less self-righteousness: “What is the New Zealander who kills and eats his enemy in war, versus the European, who to pass a mother her infant, with cold blood , tear off the chest and reproach his dogs? (The bishop Las Casas saw this abomination among the first Spanish conquerors of America.) ”

Back to the year 2021. The present with its norms is our time. Because we live in it, we have to make human rights absolute. A “reservatio mentalis” (secret reservation) is prohibited. It is right to have and defend universally valid values.

Knowledge of the historical conditionality of our normative order, however, obliges us to reflect on our own status in the pretend world. Forster and Cook do not deny their values, but rather ascertain their role and history in the abrupt clash of two traditions. Respect, humility, fairness, courage to fight: these four characteristics must harmonize in parallel whenever universal norms are claimed.