Conversely, liberty starts with valuing humans for the individuals that they are. And not as mere appendages which serve a larger whole.
Nomadic desert life is brutally hard—I suspect that if a tribe of Arab nomads had the individualism of people from San Francisco they’d all quickly die of starvation. Independence of the individual from the extended family unit isn’t all that viable absent market economies, social safety nets, etc. Independence of women from men isn’t all that viable in an environment where survival requires physically demanding and dangerous work (herding animals, fending off intruders, etc). Even in modern western society, the old depend on the young for survival; the physical safety of women is underwritten by armed men, etc. We just have layers of abstraction (Social Security, police departments, etc.) that allow those things to be done at arm’s length. In a pre-modern society those social dependencies all collapse into the family unit.
I tend to agree that, as all these economic and technological predicates for individualism arose, Christian societies were better positioned to take advantage. On the flip side, my personal belief is that modern western societies have taken that too far, to the point where they’re no long even viable as societies. The future of Europe, for example, looks to be Islam. Maybe a moderated, more secular version, but probably still quite different than the culture that prevails today.
But Christian countries have our share of organizations such as the Mafia where family and ethnic group are paramount. Christian history is full of brutal totalitarian states and violent killing.
Separately https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-p... suggests that rumors of an Islamic future for Europe are premature. And as Muslims integrate, their advantage in birth rate is likely to decline, and net conversions are away from Islam. As a result, long-term, I see no reason why Islam will grow to be more than a significant minority.
Even the ones that integrate are going to be far less individualistic than native born Europeans. Cultural legacy Carrie’s through for generations—and that’s likely to be especially true for European Muslims given how segregated they are.
Is it though? I don’t think I’ve found more individualistic societies to be less racist or nationalist.
There is a long and complicated history in English speaking people of "rights for me, but not for thee" which started with the king, was broadened to nobles with the Magna Carta, was broadened to rich landowners with the establishment of Parliament, was in the process of being broadened to free white men around the time of the American Revolution and has piecemeal been given to other groups over time.
What today we consider "universal rights" were historically not universal. Our awful treatment of others is tied to our not granting rights to them. And our awful treatment of ourselves (for example in totalitarian societies) is tied to our being subsumed in something greater.
When a large group of your population is unable to financially afford justice that's a form of ethnic cleansing.
Genocide is horrible, but what could possible be more evil? Here is what: masterminding it so that a large group of your population no longer sees it for what it is and would rather point at another country for its concentration camps than solve their issues at home.
> but you don't tend to get ethnic cleansing or organized genocides.
How would you describe the US private prison system, or gitmo if not "organized genocide"?
There are 39 prisoners in gitmo. In its total lifetime there have been 780 people. 9 died in custody. I wouldn't call that genocide.
> the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Smallest genocide by death toll(killing of Tasmanian aboriginals by the British) killed just 400 to 1000 people.
These are?
You give no examples. Also I'm in the UK and can't remember the last time anyone was killed for trespass or other minor violations (okay, one or two over a decade I think).
> killing multiple strangers in a rage of entitlement
You give no examples. Post some evidence, overall numbers of such cases, details please.
> calling police to kill or punish strangers who are having mental health crises for minor violations of public behavior ordinances
You give no examples - post summary details.
> basically killing or punishing strangers for any old reason. I
You give no examples.
> I'd venture to guess
so no evidence whatsover
> we do orders of magnitude more of it per capita in the West
The US is not 'the West'. Perhaps you'd like to consider the UK, Germany, Scandinavia....
I suspect you're right in thinking honour killings aren't common (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing_in_Pakistan#Pre...> "The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan lists 460 cases of reported honour killings in 2017, with 194 males and 376 females as victims"), but it's the extreme point of a pervasively oppressive/intolerant system which can ruin lives without actually killing people.
> extremes in the behaviors of people with Western, liberal-individualistic belief systems
I can think a of few similar non-US examples of the above behaviors, but he's already answered the original question.
Yes, I take your point, he was talking of that specific subset, not (as I read it) the west in general.
> ..but he's already answered the original question.
Within that specific subset, I'd agree he has. Thanks.
Yes, there are many things that are accepted in other cultures as normal that I am happy to condemn. If you can't find it in you to condemn at least some of them, then I think that there is something wrong with you.
Do you have anything other than the jordan peterson paraphrase to back this as a cause, as opposed to the actual dangerous ideologies? One could just as easily state as absolute fact that subsuming the individual to the societal unit is at the heart of the greatest accomplishments of humankind.
This idea is a straightforward false dichotomy presenting the only alternative to absolute individual liberty as complete subjugation of free will, and used to provide some truly absurd explanations for things, such as 'honor' being the actual problem in this case, not the 'killings'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism#Origins_and_histo...
> One could just as easily state as absolute fact that subsuming the individual to the societal unit is at the heart of the greatest accomplishments of humankind.
Do you have a benevolent dictator in mind?
> complete subjugation of free will
The fundamental problem of religion (politics, generally) is that you agree to submit to an all-merciful, all-benevolent, all-knowing entity. The reality of the deal is rather less satisfying.
You can find similar points of view in many previous writers from points as distant in the ideological spectrum as George Orwell and Ayn Rand.