I'd written:
>Regardless which direction they're imposed, I claim that imposing anything
>on anyone by force is simply uncivilized behavior, whether it's displayed
>by a schoolyard bully or endemic in the population at large. To the extent
>any culture - including ours - embraces the idea that coercion is
>defensible behavior, it has no claim to be a civilized culture. Cultural
>relativism is beside the point.
To which Samael objects:
>So you'd discount what most people mean by civilised (just did a quick
check
>and found that the most common definition runs to "Technologically
advanced
>and rationally ordered"). And remove all possible candidates for
>civilisation (there being none that fit your criteria).
Well, one definition of "civilization" is (from Webster): "refinement of thought, manners, or taste". I think that opposition to aggression fits this definition.
I think that most peacefully inclined people would tend to agree that society becomes more civilized as aggressive behavior diminishes.
Dick