Quote:The particular things you mention here are very different from one another. In the case of polygamous marriage, I find it very difficult to identify specific harm to the woman, provided she agrees to it. On the other hand, in the case of genital mutilation, the harm is blatantly obvious. You don't even have to judge these things according to a feminist perspective to make up your mind about whether they are moral or not. A judgment in the case of female circumcision can rest on the fundamental right to control of one's own body.
If the question of morality concerning circumcison were blatant then it wouldn't happen at all. My point concerning female circumcision and polygamy hasn't anything to do with whether there is harm involved but how relative the judgement concerning them. How these practises are judged will differ from society to society. No right is fundamental. They are wrong to YOU.
"6 Feb. 1997 (Daily Telegraph): EIGHT Egyptian women out of 10 consider female circumcision to be a good tradition, according to a study by the official National Population Council. It shows...97 per cent of 14,779 married women aged between 15 and 49 polled had undergone the operation - a procedure which was banned last year in public hospitals by the Egyptian Health Ministry."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/150.html
Quote:Because there is a moral duty to do the right thing, and some people (US citizens) have the power to change their government.
Well they are not doing a very good job of it.
Quote:It is very hard to know in advance whether education will "take" in a particular person or not. The point is to give them the opportunity to learn. Then, all you can do is sit back and see what happens.
You sound like a missionary. You cannot educate anyone at all if they are not open, willing and most of all trusting. Point being that if a country, society or people do not open their doors to you it doesn't make a difference what you think is right or wrong for them. You'll have a better chance of staying dry by pissing in the wind.
Quote
esired ends always determine actions. Some ends are moral; others are amoral. People do not always act morally, obviously. Morality is all about "ought", not "is".
Right, which is why I say that the only 'moral' ground for using the bomb was 'the save our ass morality'. Morality is a set of standard whereby you judge someone or yourself good or bad. You make the mistake of projecting your sense of morality on others, people who have a different set of standards. Its one thing to live by them yourself and another to advocate them others who do not concern you and are not interested in your morality...it makes you an evangelist.
Quote: Those people are effectively insane. On the one hand, they oppose abortion, supposedly out of respect for human life. Then, in the next breath, they take human life. The hypocrisy is blatant.
There is no proof of insanity only of belief. The moral reasoning they use is the same kind of 'moral' reasoning you used concerning the bomb, justifying something heinous on 'moral' grounds, and that is killing in the interest of saving more life. Those who kill abortion doctors believe that they are in a war to save unborn babies and that they are killing someone who will potentially kill more of the unborn. And yes, "The hypocrisy is blatant".
Quote:There are valid moral arguments against abortion. That's why it is such a difficult and contentious issue. It's one of those grey areas.
Its not grey at all. If a woman wants an abortion then it is good and if she doesn't then the idea is bad. Its one of those win-win situations.
Quote:incest between mother and son is wrong;
rape is wrong;actions which hurt collective public institutions are wrong;certain types of speech are frowned apon;certain forms of violence are wrong;morals have limited applicability to cultures different from one's own.
(The last one is particularly interesting, don't you think? For example, violence against "others" from outside one's culture is often considered to be more acceptable than violence against others in one's own culture.)
The question is not what is 'wrong' but what is law. So in the first example incest may be frowned upon by all but it is not necessarily illegal and if it is will differ from society to society. Every example you gave is relative to place and circumstance. None of them are 'wrong' per se, these ideas that you say are universal are NOT universal. If they were then Hindus would not have torn down the 'collective public institution' in Ayhodya brick by brick (in that circumstance it was only 'wrong' to the muslim community, the former thought it their moral right and duty). Certian types of speech may be frowned upon but it doesn't stop people from using expletives. In some places these expletives are more accepted than in others (NYC is one place where expletives are not considered 'wrong'). Blacks use the word 'nigger' all the time and it is not considered 'wrong' but it is 'wrong' when a white person uses it (then its called a racial slur). What form of violence is wrong? Killing 350,000 people in an 'end the war effort'? (more like save our ass effort) or circucising a child? death penalty?
Abortion? All relative.
Quote:No. What happens is this:
1. A good moral argument is given for proscribing certain behaviour.
2. People who want to engage in that behaviour attempt to justify it by saying that there is actually no good reason for proscribing the behaviour. Rather, they say, the proscription is just for "political correctness", for no good reason. Note, that by labelling the proscription as "political correctness", they avoid having to counter the moral argument.
Rubbish! The judgement is not necessarily a good moral argument against behaviour unless you are the one touting it. There is no viable 'moral' argument unless you are arguing with someone who has the same set of moral standards. So no I don't see. Political correctness is an attempt to control the speech of another, it amounts 'you can't say that. A ridiculous notion that if it is not said it wont be thought or acted upon.
Quote:No. What it turned into was a cover (often for the political right) which avoids having to justify one's immoral actions.
To whom do they have to justify themselves? If an act is not illegal then there is no need for justification. That's what I mean by thought policing, the idea that one must justify thought and speech. Its nonsense.
Quote:They wouldn't be ashamed if they had any good arguments, would they? Their arguments would speak for themselves.
And they do have a valid argument which is why those against affirmative action is being voiced more and more, louder and louder by both blacks and whites. Its the 'we don't need lower standards, special treatment or hand-outs' argument.
Quote:No. There are basic duties we have to each other. For example, we ought not interfere with another person's liberty without very a very good moral rationale.
I would agree with your last sentence but I am sure there are others who do not agree. The first? Well what are those basic duties/
My Quote:You say, "an individuals freedom is always contrained by his duties to others", well guess what those overseas have no duty towards your ideals and the ideals you practise in your community.
Your response: Yes, they do.
What are you a self-proclaimed monarch now? Your arrogance is astounding and truly disturbing because you do not see that this is 'interfering with another person's liberty'. You are confused. Probably dangerous. (takes handgun and holds it at her side) YOu are philosophically no more 'reasonable' than a hard-core pro lifer...and hardly moral only controlling.
Quote:No. A point a view is valid because it is defensible with reason. Some point of view are completely invalid, because there is no logical basis on which they can be defended.
Some society's do not function on 'reason' but religion. That is just the way it is. Just because you determine a point of view valid on those grounds doesn't mean diddly to a majority of people in the world. Get use to it or better yet throw your energy back into your own society/culture where it is needed.
Quote:And (importantly) genetic heritage. We're not blank slates when we're born.
If that's the case then why did you refer to identity as a 'whim'? You say you didn't say that but that is how it reads to me. If not then please re-read your statment and clarify.
Quote:The US is not the greatest evil ever - a fact for which we should be very greatful.
It doesn't have to be the greatest evil ever and I never said it was. That does not absolve it of its evils.
Quote:True to an extent. But you were arguing for being realistic a minute ago, weren't you?
Exactly thats why I say it should disband. 50 years and they are still failing.
Quote:It is always hard to put the interests of others above your own interests. That is part of human nature. I totally agree that we should be realistic in what we expect from human nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have higher aims as goals. I don't believe we should simply throw up our hands and say "This is the way things will always be - we'll just have to get used to it!"
Our aims and goals should focus on ourselves and our communities. We should allow others to have their own aims and goals. Now if their aims and goals are focused towards interferring with our own then you fight back, but otherwise no.
My quote:So then you would agree that South Africa and the former nation known as palestine should have been forcibly intervened upon?
Your response: No.
And why not? You advocate regime change in instances where a 'majority' are being oppressed by a 'minority'.
Quote: There's very little doubt that the Chinese know about capitalism. They are embracing it more and more all the time. Some women in Iran and Gambia know about the things you mentioned, but many do not.
Quote: You obviously don't know anything about the 'golden age' of pre-communist China before the war with Japan when private enterprise in urban and rural areas was the norm and very, very capitalistic. As far as what women and circumcision I would suggest you ask yourself why there are some women still practising this while living in the West or is it that you think they haven't gotten the message either, and perhaps reading a little something from Nigerian born Aima Ata Aidoo and her criticisms of the Wests interpretation of the custom:
http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/wom015_fgm_europe2.htm
Quote:I don't think it's "Americans" you're thinking of here, but the current administration. In that case, I totally agree with you.
Yes it is. A government 'for the people by the people'. In short americans supposedly engage in participatory government, they can't simply take responsibility for what is 'good' and then suddenly absolve themselves of responsibility on matters that are embarrasing. I would make the same accusation concerning matters like female circumcision. We are each responsible for the government and society we live and take part in.
Quote:You don't have to convince people of these core values. They know. Unfortunately, people tend to be selfish. They do not always do the right thing when doing the wrong thing can lead to a greater benefit for them as individuals.
That is simply wishful thinking on your part. Your problem is that you believe people are inherently 'good' and naturally 'moral' and I am saying that neither is true. If people tend to be 'selfish' and act on that 'selfishness' then by your own argument these core values are not even normal. I don't believe that people are inherently 'bad' or 'good' to use your terms they are simply human (something far more complex).
Quote:Nobody chooses not to be free, unless they make a net gain by doing so. And then, it could be argued that they are still free, since they made the choice.
People choose not to be free all the time because it demands too much responsibility. People choose not to be free of religion/tradition. People willingly follow their dictators. Women choose to remain in abusive relationships with tryrants. Some people choose to be modern day slaves (contract and all).
Quote:Governments are not monolithic entities. When it comes down to it, they are made up of people just like you and me. In fact, they can be you and me, if we puts our minds to it - at least in a democracy. Far too many people whinge about their government and never lift a finger to try to change what it is they don't like. Look at the voter turnout in the US, for example
Thank you. That's my whole point.
Quote:Not necessary. The American people can do that themselves in November.
Yea but will they? Or will they just put Bush in for safety? You know terrorism and all that bruhaha.
Quote:But does it, in fact, lead to stiffer penalties? Do you have any statistics on that?
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act/1994
"Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995."