Freethinkers International has evolved into a global community. Its members now come from radically different cultural, religious, and political backgrounds. Many live in countries where open questioning is dangerous or outright illegal. In some cases, thought itself becomes a crime. Should we westernize non-Westerners?
This diversity raises a difficult, even uncomfortable, question. Should we encourage the Westernization of these freethinkers? Should we urge them to adopt values developed in a different part of the world, born out of Enlightenment thinking and secular liberalism? Is that morally justified?
Despite the weight of this question, the answer is yes. However, the reasoning behind this answer is not rooted in national pride, nor in superiority complexes. It is grounded in the preservation of human dignity.
Between culture and conscience
At first glance, the idea of Westernizing someone from outside the West sounds colonial. It echoes older periods of domination, where one civilization sought to reprogram another in its own image. Critics often invoke this memory. They argue that imposing Western norms on non-Western individuals is not only arrogant but harmful. According to them, we should respect cultural differences, even when they suppress individual freedom.
But a deeper look reveals a false equivalence. Cultural traditions are not all morally equal. While every culture deserves understanding, not every norm deserves protection. There is a line between cultural diversity and institutional cruelty. That line must be defended.
Across the world, many freethinkers confront cultures that punish doubt. Apostasy, blasphemy, and dissent still carry severe penalties. Even mild criticism can provoke legal action or violence. These realities strip people of basic autonomy. To treat such repression as “cultural” is to betray the individuals trapped inside.
Yes, the West Is flawed – deeply
Before going further, let us acknowledge the obvious. Western governments, especially in recent decades, have repeatedly betrayed the ideals they claim to uphold. They wage unjust wars, exploit poorer nations. They spy on their own populations, fuel wealth inequality, and allow billionaires to warp public policy. In this context, the West often appears not as a beacon of liberty, but as a machine of hypocrisy.
True enough. But this hypocrisy only proves the strength of the ideals being violated. If Western values were meaningless, no one would accuse their governments of failing to uphold them. The rage, the activism, and the whistleblowing all arise precisely because people still expect something better.
Westernize? Fragile ideals still worth defending
Underneath the corruption and disillusionment lies a foundation worth preserving. At its best, the Western tradition introduced political ideals rooted in individual dignity. These include opposition to capital punishment, prohibition of torture, freedom of speech, and the right to a sustainable life. They also include the right to work, access healthcare, receive education, and participate in democratic governance.
These ideals are not fully realized anywhere. Nevertheless, they survive as norms, as public expectations, and as legal guarantees in many countries. They form the moral minimum beneath any real freethought.
Importantly, these values do not belong to the West alone. Their roots stretch across civilizations. The West merely codified them during a particular historical moment. Other societies developed similar ideas in parallel. However, today, the international articulation of such rights still follows a Western legal grammar—one that freethinkers need in order to defend themselves.
Western culture and the ethics of discussion
Beyond laws, Westernization includes certain conversational manners. It favors dialogue over silence, evidence over authority, and argument over insult. It teaches that truth must survive pressure, and that no idea is sacred. In such a climate, freethought can actually function. People can question, protest, and rethink without being crushed.
In contrast, many non-Western environments still treat disagreement as betrayal. They reward conformity and penalize deviation. They elevate loyalty above evidence. Freethinkers caught in this environment suffer two-fold: they are intellectually alienated and socially endangered.
Here is where Western cultural influence can help—not to erase identities, but to carve out safe spaces for minds under siege.
Why not leave them alone?
Many well-meaning progressives hesitate. They worry that any promotion of Western ideals outside the West smells of coercion. They say, “Let them find their own way.” But this overlooks what freethinkers themselves are asking for.
People do not join global freethought communities because they want to be left alone. They join because they seek support. They want allies. And they want tools to challenge systems that crush them. To respond with cultural relativism is not respect—it is abandonment.
Western values, even when violated at home, offer language and precedent that can strengthen the freethinker abroad. With those tools, they can challenge authority, seek justice, and imagine a freer life.
Westernize? Philosophical obsolescence does not invalidate moral beginnings
Yes, Western values have been overtaken in philosophical sophistication. Today’s moral philosophy includes systems like total utilitarianism, Rawlsian justice, and postcolonial ethics. These frameworks often find Western liberalism too shallow or too self-serving.
That is fair critique. Philosophically, Western human rights form only the base layer. They are not the ceiling. But they are still the essential first steps. Before we debate theories of perfect justice, we must guarantee people the right to speak, to live without fear, and to think without punishment.
Non-Western freethinkers cannot leap into abstract debates about transhumanism or climate ethics when they risk arrest for questioning religion. They first need the space to think at all.
Westernization is not erasure
When we advocate for Westernization in this context, we do not mean assimilation. We do not ask non-Western thinkers to dress, speak, or worship like Westerners. And we ask only that they embrace and benefit from the foundational protections that freethought requires.
We want them to survive, to be heard, and to flourish. Westernization, in this sense, is not about changing their culture—it is about making room within it for inquiry, doubt, and difference.
A world at a crossroads
Power is shifting. China, Russia, India, and other emerging giants offer alternative models of governance. Most of these models emphasize control over liberty, stability over dissent. In many ways, they mirror the pre-Enlightenment West. Surveillance, censorship, and nationalism dominate.
Against this backdrop, freethinkers must choose. Do they align with cultures that preserve the freedom to criticize power? Or do they retreat into ideologies that demand silence? The West’s flaws are real. But so is its moral legacy. To pretend otherwise is to disarm ourselves in the face of growing repression.
A moral imperative, not a cultural crusade
Supporting the Westernization of non-Western freethinkers is not about conquest. It is not about preaching superiority, it is about global solidarity. And It iis about ensuring that people who challenge oppression do not stand alone. It is about offering not just sympathy, but structure.
We owe it to them not because we are better, but because we understand the costs of silence. Freethought is not safe without scaffolding. That scaffolding must be built from laws, habits, and rights—and most of those still trace back to the Western Enlightenment.
Conclusion: Say yes, without apology
Yes, we should Westernize non-Western freethinkers. We should do so openly, respectfully, and urgently. Let us not pretend neutrality is noble. It is often just cowardice dressed as tolerance. Let us instead defend the rights that make freethought real—no matter where the thinker was born.
Let us recognize the West’s hypocrisy, but not use it as an excuse to surrender its values. Let us admit that the philosophical frontier has moved, but that the ethical foundations remain necessary.
And let us stand, side by side, with those whose thoughts could cost them their freedom—offering not just words, but principles that can shield them.
Because if we do not, who will?
Leave a Reply