@
uh-oh
I see now a bit more what you mean by clarifying/somewhat revising what I had quoted from you.
I also am not a fan of the overly simplistic "good vs. evil" paradigms.
And, at the risk of appearing to overly "hedge", I just want to be clear that I also do not think the Israeli shelling of Lebanon a decade ago, &the violent invasion of Gaza more recently-- I also do not think these are "good" for the well-being of humans. They are bad. Very bad; it's like torching and bulldozing your entire house because there a few dangerous wasps in it. (Funded and armed with the major help of the US gov't I might add).
But simply by elaborating on such things, I am basically falling into the "trap" or "construct" of "the West" vs. "Them"-- the very construct which the religious whackos want to frame everything. So I guess that's bad too but it's an easier way to explain things.
I am basically just making an argument for moral relativism. Which can be prickly of course, but I truly believe that there are "degrees of right&wrong" which can be starkly objective.
The Ghandi nonviolent resistance for India's independence, to me seems a rightful cause... again, for the health&well-being of humans living there.
Now, the British Empire may have strongly disagreed; and said our well-being is helped by territory, goods, power, and profit...
And yes, until their Independence, what Britain Said...Went.. so to speak. I see that part of the argument you're trying to make. Doesn't mean it's right or good. On the sliding scale I feel like Ghandi was more in the right, whether he "won" or "lost" (again to use simplistic terms).
