Philosophers.

im writing a paper arguing that British culture being forced on Indians. I dont really agree with it, but I still have to write from that point of view. My thesis is a "ends justify the means" kind of thing. But i dont feel like I can use Machiavelli as a philosophical example, cus he was more for justifying violence if im not mistaken... so in other worsd, Im kinda wondering if anyone here can think of a philosopher I can use as an example of what Im trying to argue as my thesis. Thanks

mogadishu.

bizump!

I am seriously far from being an expert on the subject, indeed pretty much ignorant, so read this with a large pinch of salt.

As I understand it most people's opinions of Machiavelli come from his work "The Prince". Hence the concept of Machiavellian plots etc. In this he says, or at least appears to say that rulers should retain absolute control over their land / people. Further that they should use any means necessary to accomplish this, including deceit.

I tend to agree that this would not be appropriate to your point, which tends to suggest (to me) cultural imperialism. As opposed to taking any steps necessary to retain control. Cultural imperialism would really imply a total disregard for the wishes of the indigenous population, which doesn't really fit in with the Machiavellian idea.

However as I said earlier, what do I know, this is all very much of the cuff.

It is some time since I read The Prince. It is written like a handbook. A guide for a Prince (medieval Italy was split up into dozens of competing city states) to negotiate his way through maintaining control over his subjects (a number of cities were republics) and competing with other Princes for control over trade etc., hence the advice on plots and how to thwart ones against you.

J'Pol is right, you are rather looking at cultural imperialism. Is this current, as in Indians residing in Britain today feeling swamped by a dominant culture or is it the slow erosion of indigenous cultures through world trade and media outlets (music, movies etc.,)? If it is the latter you could point out the cross fertilisation between cultures and how many of the Bollywood ideas are finding their way into Western culture.

As an after-thought, you are not so much looking for a philosopher as a political economist. Althusser's "dis-articulation of economies" is ideal (just bloody hard to understand - if you get to grips with it you are on for an A)

Yes I thought Machiavelli's Prince was a little too harsh for this subject, but looking into cultural imperialism is a great suggestion.

@Biggles

I will defenitely look into Althusser. And im adressing issues from the early-mid 1800's as the base for my arguement that "cultural imperialism" as I will now put it, is necessary.

Thanks Again,

Mogadishu.

It might be a giggle to compare and contrast that situation to the current cultural imperialism of the USA.

This may help if you chose that route.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@20 January 2004 - 20:55
It might be a giggle to compare and contrast that situation to the current cultural imperialism of the USA.

This may help if you chose that route.

---

yea i only wish i could. I'm trying to present "cultural imperialism" as a good thing, and i have a feeling that if i brought that up it wouldnt really help my case. But i wish i had chose the other side, too late now though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mogadishu+21 January 2004 - 02:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mogadishu @ 21 January 2004 - 02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@20 January 2004 - 20:55
It might be a giggle to compare and contrast that situation to the current cultural imperialism of the USA.

This may help if you chose that route.

---

yea i only wish i could. I&#39;m trying to present "cultural imperialism" as a good thing, and i have a feeling that if i brought that up it wouldnt really help my case. But i wish i had chose the other side, too late now though. [/b][/quote]
Fair point.

Having said that, if it was easy they would get monkeys to do it.

I am sure you will put forward an excellent argument, to support a position with which you fundamentally disagree.

It is an excellent intellectual exercise to do so. All one has to do is remove any emotional / ethical content from one&#39;s words.

Good luck, please let us know how you get on.

Out of my league here, but you may want to consider "utilitarian philosphers". These folks believed that "rightness" was determined by outcome. What could bring happines to the most people.

You could justify human experiments to better understand disease, as the experiments, although cruel to the subjects, would provide information that would bring a greater happiness to a society.

This is in essense an "ends justifying the means" philosophy.

My dusty memories of a class in which people created chaos out of order.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@21 January 2004 - 03:18
Out of my league here, but you may want to consider "utilitarian philosphers".&nbsp; These folks believed that "rightness" was determined by outcome.&nbsp; What could bring happines to the most people.

You could justify human experiments to better understand disease, as the experiments, although cruel to the subjects, would provide information that would bring a greater happiness to a society.

This is in essense an "ends justifying the means" philosophy.

My dusty memories of a class in which people created chaos out of order.

---

Are you suggesting that the Raj brought happiness to most people ? Or that it could be argued ?

I think the chap will have to stick to some form of objective / abstract good if he is to argue his case. I really cannot see any way to argue your point, however that is almost certainly a failing on my part.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@20 January 2004 - 21:18
Out of my league here, but you may want to consider "utilitarian philosphers". These folks believed that "rightness" was determined by outcome. What could bring happines to the most people.

You could justify human experiments to better understand disease, as the experiments, although cruel to the subjects, would provide information that would bring a greater happiness to a society.

This is in essense an "ends justifying the means" philosophy.

My dusty memories of a class in which people created chaos out of order.

---

ive been reading up all today and they&#39;ve been mentioned many times, ill be sure to check them out some more. Thanks.