Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
Modern Britain is better.
I can decide because I am a moral being.
The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Western civilization can boast of unique accomplishments that we should cherish and defend with our lives, not ignore, debase or sell out to the first (or second) president or terrorist who comes along. The West is superior (or rather: has been superior until now) in the various ways that you state.
Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.
And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

But here's the rub: the fact that the West produced these superior institutions does not mean that westerners are superior human beings. The West has changed the world, but it has not managed to change human nature. And I don't think we ever will, at least not in our lifetime, unless by crude genetic and pharmaceutical means with very uncertain outcomes.

I agree with Victor Davis Hanson's position that sees..
Quote Originally Posted by Victor Davis Hanson
.. human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.
Which gives rise to the following question: how could these superior institutions have evolved in the face of immutable human nature? Why are they successful? My answer would be that they are superior responses to the 'tragic lessons' mentioned (I guess that, in a way, I am betraying my Dutch calvinist roots here).

As fas as democracy is concerned, I think that it is successful not because it reflects a superior human nature or moral position of people in the West, but because democracy is better than other, previous political systems at containing human nature and channeling its aspirations and energies in productive ways. It is the best system for humans to mutually check and balance their ambitions, to their mutual advantage. In other words, democracy is the best palliative for the disease called 'society'. This rhetorical short-cut is not meant to devalue democracy in any way, but this is a Internet forum post, not a Ph.D. thesis.

In a similar way, science is a superior response to eternal human curiosity and civil liberties are a superior response to the eternal human yearning to be socially and intellectually free. Of course these three major civilizational accomplishments have deep historic roots; so has human nature. Of course they can be traced back to Antiquity and the dawn of written sources; so can human nature. Of course they have roots and precursors in any historical civilization and in the remotest corners of the world: so has human nature. And of course, for that very same reason, they appeal to the large majority of mankind.

Pindar may well be right that these institutions could evolve more easily in Europe as a consequence of European historic fragmentation and competition between neighbouring political systems, competing religions and rival ideologies. We will never now because we can not experiment with history, turn back clocks or change historical outcomes.

And Pindar is certainly right that Asian cultures have no hang-ups about their superiority. Ask any Japanese, Chinese or Indian what they think of their civilization, and nine out of ten will shamelessly vaunt its superiority and (in the case of Japan) its superior uniqueness as well. Westerners, on the other hand, have always displayed and cultivated a great curiosity about other civilizations. Remember who invented anthropology.

On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. Arguments that socialism runs counter to human nature don't cut it with me. So does democracy, and look how we embraced that system after its numerous failures and in spite of lingering (and oft justified) doubts about its outcomes.

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

PS Superior topic, Pindar!