Morals and multiculturalism
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
By acceptable, do you mean morally or logically acceptable?
Generally, saying that a thing is "acceptable morally" supposes that you have some standard of morality by which you are judging it. In that case, it would be rather silly to say that you find making "objective" moral judgements to be an immoral act.
If logically, or practically, you've made another moral judgement - moral in the widest sense of the term - and the same objection applies.
You cannot escape making "moral" judgements and you cannot put them on a purely rational level. All you do is set the terms by which you make them.
Generally, saying that a thing is "acceptable morally" supposes that you have some standard of morality by which you are judging it. In that case, it would be rather silly to say that you find making "objective" moral judgements to be an immoral act.
If logically, or practically, you've made another moral judgement - moral in the widest sense of the term - and the same objection applies.
You cannot escape making "moral" judgements and you cannot put them on a purely rational level. All you do is set the terms by which you make them.
No, because those judgements are based on a biased point of view. Morality and its use differs from one society to the next so to judge the "morality" of another society or cultures through the eyes of your culture serves to do nothing but make biased and ignorant assumptions and judgements.
Also the idea of making "judgement" through the standards of morality doesn't put me at ease.
judgements are based on a biased point of view
doesn't "judging" mean to express a bias?
when judging, you judge it in comparison to something... usually, it's your own standards, or the standards of your society / culture.
that's why i say "genital mutilation" is WRONG... i say the same thing for honor killings, or that custom that the Chinese did to their baby girls' feet centuries ago. it is WRONG according to me and my values.
but all those things are probably completely acceptable and normal in their respective cultures.
doesn't "judging" mean to express a bias?
when judging, you judge it in comparison to something... usually, it's your own standards, or the standards of your society / culture.
that's why i say "genital mutilation" is WRONG... i say the same thing for honor killings, or that custom that the Chinese did to their baby girls' feet centuries ago. it is WRONG according to me and my values.
but all those things are probably completely acceptable and normal in their respective cultures.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
those chinese lotus feet occurred into the 20th century and probably still happens sometime in the very rural parts of china
Ultimately, any moral judgement that an individual makes of anything shall reflect that individual's moral basis.
Is it acceptable? Yes, I believe so. Moral relativity is practical only in the political sense; my judgement of another culture's practices as flawed has absolutely zero impact.
If their practices have an immediate practical implication, then judging is not only unavoidable but necessary. In that case it will be important to first understand and second to reconcile with our own values and belief.
Recently I am writing a paper on the ethics in business bribery. That's as practical as it gets. In US that's wrong but in other countries it's no big deal. Should US bribe with dealing with 3rd world coutries? Sure because we understand that is common practice and cannot cripple ourselves with competitive disavantages by not adapting such practices with 3rd wolrd countries. Of course we don't do that in US. That is the first part. The second part is to reconcile with our values. It might be slightly dishonest but not really.
If another different case involves killing someone innocent, then of course it's unacceptable because we value highly on human lives.
Good point.
That is where the problem starts. Where do you draw the line?...how far is too far according to you yet completely accepted and expected in another culture?
What about law?....do you think the measures instilled to fight Jury bias work well? Bias has no place right......it is all decided on fact and proof, not assumptions and personal conclusions so does the jury still considers their personal views and notions in decisions making?
I think that making a moral judgement is not only acceptable but very necessary. However acting on that judgement is another matter.
We can look at a culture and disagree or agree with the morality in question but to act on that judgement is loaded with problems.
At what point do we decide to act on our morals over some one elses?
We can look at a culture and disagree or agree with the morality in question but to act on that judgement is loaded with problems.
At what point do we decide to act on our morals over some one elses?
Are we seeking an absolute answer?
It seems to me that the answer is in fact "Yes and No."
Yes, if the moral outlook at least allows for reciprocity.
No, if the moral outlook does not.
Let me crow my own self for a moment. The reason I'm so hard on certain sociopolitical, moral, and ethical paradigms is that they are fixed and do not allow for certain vital deviations. I believe I understand something about what some Muslims don't like about the idea of "America." Not because I understand Muslims, but because, being a human being, I have some understanding of human nature. Is my vision any sharper than the next person's? In the abstract, no, but observationally I tend to be rather quite happy with the amount of time I spend thinking and reflecting because past incarnations shame my brain into submission with a certain amount of inflexibility. But think about it: there are some things we bemoan about our own culture. If the Muslims or anybody else don't want those aspects of our society--not just the indignity of having the highest unwed teen birth rate in the industrialized first world, but what of the indignity experienced daily by millions of workers in fast food, entertainment concessions, specialty retail, and telemarketing subjected to the task of "suggestive sales"? Look, if Ahmed doesn't want to call thousands of people at dinnertime for weeks on end asking them to take a survey--what turns out to be a very disturbing opinion poll about child pornography and abortion, draw whatever connections you will, no matter how silly--that runs for eighty-some questions and thirty minutes for a lousy six bucks an hour, well, that doesn't mean he's jealous of America and hates freedom.
I understand ... there are some things about my cultural values that make other people shudder. At the height of my glory days, I smoked dope with porn stars. There exists a real possibility that I've actually subverted democracy on one occasion, but I beg forgiveness because I did once administer an eighty-some question, thirty-minute survey calling people from 5:00 pm until 10:00 pm, asking them questions about abortion and child pornography.
And now consider that beady-eyed, five-foot tall, red-faced KKK guy that looked like a garden gnome on moonshine and methamphetamine that used to make the rounds on second- and third-tier talk shows in the 90s. You know, I think it's fair for me to morally condemn his inflexibility. Niggers and spics an kikes and yadda-yadda-yadda.
That guy at the former "World Church" (now known as "The Creativity Movement") who wept for a fallen soldier in the racial holy war, a guy who murdered people before committing suicide.
I feel I have the right to judge my lying, cheating President of the United States.
The thing these three have in common isn't actually racism. Let's not make the mistake of that joke, no matter how much it might make some of us smile. The thing is that I perceive an inflexibility in the way they view the world. They do not understand the idea of judgmental reciprocity, that their own ideas might seem as strange to the other guy as his do to them.
What I can't seem to do is judge a body I don't understand enough to see the inflexibility. Whether in Liberia or Rwanda, it's hard for me to figure why the people who were left begging for relief were left begging for relief. Fourteen years into a civil war? In the waning days, 25,000 Monrovians marched and attempted to place themselves smack between the lines and were pushed out by government troops. Yeah, I kind of think that maybe if they'd had every able-bodied peacebeggar in Monrovia with them that day, it would have been a different outcome. But when LURD shells civilians, the perverse logic is that they are implicitly endorsing the government and are therefore fair game, or else that the people should respond by rising up against the government for lack of protection. They're bloody terrorists. F@cking f@ck! You don't do that! Moron thug terrorst!
And sometime those ideas are easy to figure out.
If you ask me about a weird cultural tradition like clitoridectomy (note the judgment of the word "weird") you'll get a strange answer: Read Jomo Kenyatta's Facing Mt. Kenya. It's actually an excellent book. But ... there's an old myth that says once upon a time the women ruled the world. Incidentally, this is in proper terms with an anthropological assertion that primitive cultural associations were matricentric until men figured their role in reproduction. So says the myth, the women got decadent, so the men rose up and saved the world. For at least one tribe, that was the explanation for clitoridectomy: taming a woman's decadence. And I don't so much condemn it as immoral as I do so unutterably stupid that I can't really do much other than shake my head because, and this is the important part: As long as we allow myths to define reality in such a literal manner--e.g. religion?--there will always be a reason for slicing off a young girl's clit.
Welcome to the human race. Whether or not we make it to the finish line is beside the point. The reasons don't actually have to make any sense. We humans seem to prefer it that way.
Here's a clincher question: Could one of those tribal members comprehend the idea that I think they're damn near insane?
Would they care at all?
Dare I be so condescending as to forego judgment claiming the idea so primitive that it signifies non compos mentis, or however that's stated?
Would that not be a judgment in itself, and, in relegating the idea to "amoral" for its insanity, would that not be a moral judgment inasmuch as, say, atheism is a religious assertion?
Do I judge poor people in the third world for some of the things they eat? I don't think I have the right. If I had to butcher and eat my neighbor's dog ... I think I'd wander around and suck on rocks and trees until I died, sometime early the next week.
As to what point requires action ... I haven't a clue.
It seems to me that the answer is in fact "Yes and No."
Yes, if the moral outlook at least allows for reciprocity.
No, if the moral outlook does not.
Let me crow my own self for a moment. The reason I'm so hard on certain sociopolitical, moral, and ethical paradigms is that they are fixed and do not allow for certain vital deviations. I believe I understand something about what some Muslims don't like about the idea of "America." Not because I understand Muslims, but because, being a human being, I have some understanding of human nature. Is my vision any sharper than the next person's? In the abstract, no, but observationally I tend to be rather quite happy with the amount of time I spend thinking and reflecting because past incarnations shame my brain into submission with a certain amount of inflexibility. But think about it: there are some things we bemoan about our own culture. If the Muslims or anybody else don't want those aspects of our society--not just the indignity of having the highest unwed teen birth rate in the industrialized first world, but what of the indignity experienced daily by millions of workers in fast food, entertainment concessions, specialty retail, and telemarketing subjected to the task of "suggestive sales"? Look, if Ahmed doesn't want to call thousands of people at dinnertime for weeks on end asking them to take a survey--what turns out to be a very disturbing opinion poll about child pornography and abortion, draw whatever connections you will, no matter how silly--that runs for eighty-some questions and thirty minutes for a lousy six bucks an hour, well, that doesn't mean he's jealous of America and hates freedom.
I understand ... there are some things about my cultural values that make other people shudder. At the height of my glory days, I smoked dope with porn stars. There exists a real possibility that I've actually subverted democracy on one occasion, but I beg forgiveness because I did once administer an eighty-some question, thirty-minute survey calling people from 5:00 pm until 10:00 pm, asking them questions about abortion and child pornography.
And now consider that beady-eyed, five-foot tall, red-faced KKK guy that looked like a garden gnome on moonshine and methamphetamine that used to make the rounds on second- and third-tier talk shows in the 90s. You know, I think it's fair for me to morally condemn his inflexibility. Niggers and spics an kikes and yadda-yadda-yadda.
That guy at the former "World Church" (now known as "The Creativity Movement") who wept for a fallen soldier in the racial holy war, a guy who murdered people before committing suicide.
I feel I have the right to judge my lying, cheating President of the United States.
The thing these three have in common isn't actually racism. Let's not make the mistake of that joke, no matter how much it might make some of us smile. The thing is that I perceive an inflexibility in the way they view the world. They do not understand the idea of judgmental reciprocity, that their own ideas might seem as strange to the other guy as his do to them.
What I can't seem to do is judge a body I don't understand enough to see the inflexibility. Whether in Liberia or Rwanda, it's hard for me to figure why the people who were left begging for relief were left begging for relief. Fourteen years into a civil war? In the waning days, 25,000 Monrovians marched and attempted to place themselves smack between the lines and were pushed out by government troops. Yeah, I kind of think that maybe if they'd had every able-bodied peacebeggar in Monrovia with them that day, it would have been a different outcome. But when LURD shells civilians, the perverse logic is that they are implicitly endorsing the government and are therefore fair game, or else that the people should respond by rising up against the government for lack of protection. They're bloody terrorists. F@cking f@ck! You don't do that! Moron thug terrorst!
And sometime those ideas are easy to figure out.
If you ask me about a weird cultural tradition like clitoridectomy (note the judgment of the word "weird") you'll get a strange answer: Read Jomo Kenyatta's Facing Mt. Kenya. It's actually an excellent book. But ... there's an old myth that says once upon a time the women ruled the world. Incidentally, this is in proper terms with an anthropological assertion that primitive cultural associations were matricentric until men figured their role in reproduction. So says the myth, the women got decadent, so the men rose up and saved the world. For at least one tribe, that was the explanation for clitoridectomy: taming a woman's decadence. And I don't so much condemn it as immoral as I do so unutterably stupid that I can't really do much other than shake my head because, and this is the important part: As long as we allow myths to define reality in such a literal manner--e.g. religion?--there will always be a reason for slicing off a young girl's clit.
Welcome to the human race. Whether or not we make it to the finish line is beside the point. The reasons don't actually have to make any sense. We humans seem to prefer it that way.
Here's a clincher question: Could one of those tribal members comprehend the idea that I think they're damn near insane?
Would they care at all?
Dare I be so condescending as to forego judgment claiming the idea so primitive that it signifies non compos mentis, or however that's stated?
Would that not be a judgment in itself, and, in relegating the idea to "amoral" for its insanity, would that not be a moral judgment inasmuch as, say, atheism is a religious assertion?
Do I judge poor people in the third world for some of the things they eat? I don't think I have the right. If I had to butcher and eat my neighbor's dog ... I think I'd wander around and suck on rocks and trees until I died, sometime early the next week.
As to what point requires action ... I haven't a clue.
an excellent pretext for invading france....the banning of head scarves. if we cannot get outraged at that gross violation of human rights, i dont know what can. imagine the psychological trauma suffered by those affected by the ban.
compare that with the trifling matter of clitoridectomy...
There are three forms of female genital mutilation practised in Kenya:
*Sunna' involves the removal of the hood of the clitoris and is found predominately among the Kisiis.
*The excision method cuts away the hood and glands of the clitoris and adjacent parts of the labia minora and is common in the eastern district of Meru.
*Infibulation is the severest operation of all, where the entire clitoris, and the labia minora is removed and the opening sewn to allow a tiny passage for the passing of urine and menstrual blood. It is used by the Samburu and ethnic Somalis.
more trifles.....
When the time came the boy was led to a special tree. He put his hands above his head, leaning his head on the tree for support. Unlike girls, boys were not supported by anybody during the operation and were not expected to show any signs of pain. In the process of operation the older boys stood with clubs and spears threatening that if the boy moved or showed any signs of pain he would be killed.
After the operation the boys were led away holding their bleeding penises with one hand and carrying a bush, ekerundu, a fertility symbol, in the other hand.
so ah i gotta respect this? people evolve! they get educated! there is absolutely no biological or medical rationale for these procedures. look at reasons given...
*According to communities which uphold the tradition, the rite represents a passage to adulthood and enhances tribal and social cohesion.
"Circumcised girls receive important recognition among peers and within the community. It also increases marriage opportunities for girls and assists in ensuring a favourable economic situation for the family," says Dr. Agina Alour of the University of Nairobi's anthropology department.
kenya
seriously, how would this culture be negatively impacted if these practices were dropped?
cutural traditions gone insane....
* "There is reason to believe, however, that these explanations are post facto rationalizations, consequences of, rather than contributory to, female infanticide. For example, Rasmussen himself reports :the Netsilik never think of reasoning with themselves" about their beliefs, "but simply react to what some event or other may force upon their notice" (Ibid:206); and again, "It is said that it is so, and therefore it is so" (Ibid.: 207). A similar conclusion is reached by Steenhoven, who writes, with regard to the delay in conceiving while nursing: "But the Eskimo do not usually rationalize along these lines; they have just accepted the practice of infanticide as a custom" (Steenhoven 1962: 50). (Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1014)
*"Balikci (1967: 623) has discussed the various cultural strategies, including child betrothal, adaption, and importation of wives, that were employed to ensure satisfactory recruitment of females into the adult population. Interestingly, such practices existed alongside female infanticide, the very practice that contributed above all others to the shortage of women!"( Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1013)
infanticide
at the very least, could we drop some family planning leaflets along with some condoms? or is that too much interference?
spookz rants insanely in a previous thread.....
*There is an inherent racism involved when a american baby cannot be left out in cold to die and and a chinese one can. this is not a superficial difference that should be accepted and enjoyed for its contrast. rather it should be an instance where alternative solutions should be offered. it about being humane and being part of a larger society. you do not seem to understand that concept
*here is the bottom line. respect is fine if the "ways of life" are abided by some objective standards of right and wrong. you do not stand by and watch people getting butchered. you do not let human rights ( as constituted by a general consensus of world opinion) violations occur without some form of action....relief/censure/sanctions/humanitarian intervention
*in order for this to happen, all you gotta do is move out of that little village you live in your head. your priorities are skewed and you have adopted a position that is quite damning. it appear however you do not recognize this fact. i recommend *****
*you punks simply do not understand some cultures can be more wrong or more right that others. when the rwandans indulged in genocide, condemnation/action has to be forthcoming. you cannot write those actions off as some cultural preference that has to be respected.
*viv la difference? i'll shove that difference up your ***, *****!
*secondly i notice you also assume that reason is similarly up for grabs. each person has their own style and is valid as any other according to them. ********! logical thought processes take similar forms no matter what culture it arises in. a will aways equal a. anywhere!
*poorly developed and random arguments are all that relativists got. holding out cannabilsm in some remote peak as an example of ethical relativism is indicative of the confusion. dragging out instances of temporary aberrations due to special circumstance does nothing for the wider argument which is.... can we as humans agree on a certain codes of conduct where all can benefit. we have! that laws adopted adhere to certain objective standards. you wann know what these are, go to ******* school!
*if context is lacking see original thread
edit: for profanity and font
compare that with the trifling matter of clitoridectomy...
There are three forms of female genital mutilation practised in Kenya:
*Sunna' involves the removal of the hood of the clitoris and is found predominately among the Kisiis.
*The excision method cuts away the hood and glands of the clitoris and adjacent parts of the labia minora and is common in the eastern district of Meru.
*Infibulation is the severest operation of all, where the entire clitoris, and the labia minora is removed and the opening sewn to allow a tiny passage for the passing of urine and menstrual blood. It is used by the Samburu and ethnic Somalis.
more trifles.....
When the time came the boy was led to a special tree. He put his hands above his head, leaning his head on the tree for support. Unlike girls, boys were not supported by anybody during the operation and were not expected to show any signs of pain. In the process of operation the older boys stood with clubs and spears threatening that if the boy moved or showed any signs of pain he would be killed.
After the operation the boys were led away holding their bleeding penises with one hand and carrying a bush, ekerundu, a fertility symbol, in the other hand.
so ah i gotta respect this? people evolve! they get educated! there is absolutely no biological or medical rationale for these procedures. look at reasons given...
*According to communities which uphold the tradition, the rite represents a passage to adulthood and enhances tribal and social cohesion.
"Circumcised girls receive important recognition among peers and within the community. It also increases marriage opportunities for girls and assists in ensuring a favourable economic situation for the family," says Dr. Agina Alour of the University of Nairobi's anthropology department.
kenya
seriously, how would this culture be negatively impacted if these practices were dropped?
cutural traditions gone insane....
* "There is reason to believe, however, that these explanations are post facto rationalizations, consequences of, rather than contributory to, female infanticide. For example, Rasmussen himself reports :the Netsilik never think of reasoning with themselves" about their beliefs, "but simply react to what some event or other may force upon their notice" (Ibid:206); and again, "It is said that it is so, and therefore it is so" (Ibid.: 207). A similar conclusion is reached by Steenhoven, who writes, with regard to the delay in conceiving while nursing: "But the Eskimo do not usually rationalize along these lines; they have just accepted the practice of infanticide as a custom" (Steenhoven 1962: 50). (Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1014)
*"Balikci (1967: 623) has discussed the various cultural strategies, including child betrothal, adaption, and importation of wives, that were employed to ensure satisfactory recruitment of females into the adult population. Interestingly, such practices existed alongside female infanticide, the very practice that contributed above all others to the shortage of women!"( Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1013)
infanticide
at the very least, could we drop some family planning leaflets along with some condoms? or is that too much interference?
spookz rants insanely in a previous thread.....
*There is an inherent racism involved when a american baby cannot be left out in cold to die and and a chinese one can. this is not a superficial difference that should be accepted and enjoyed for its contrast. rather it should be an instance where alternative solutions should be offered. it about being humane and being part of a larger society. you do not seem to understand that concept
*here is the bottom line. respect is fine if the "ways of life" are abided by some objective standards of right and wrong. you do not stand by and watch people getting butchered. you do not let human rights ( as constituted by a general consensus of world opinion) violations occur without some form of action....relief/censure/sanctions/humanitarian intervention
*in order for this to happen, all you gotta do is move out of that little village you live in your head. your priorities are skewed and you have adopted a position that is quite damning. it appear however you do not recognize this fact. i recommend *****
*you punks simply do not understand some cultures can be more wrong or more right that others. when the rwandans indulged in genocide, condemnation/action has to be forthcoming. you cannot write those actions off as some cultural preference that has to be respected.
*viv la difference? i'll shove that difference up your ***, *****!
*secondly i notice you also assume that reason is similarly up for grabs. each person has their own style and is valid as any other according to them. ********! logical thought processes take similar forms no matter what culture it arises in. a will aways equal a. anywhere!
*poorly developed and random arguments are all that relativists got. holding out cannabilsm in some remote peak as an example of ethical relativism is indicative of the confusion. dragging out instances of temporary aberrations due to special circumstance does nothing for the wider argument which is.... can we as humans agree on a certain codes of conduct where all can benefit. we have! that laws adopted adhere to certain objective standards. you wann know what these are, go to ******* school!
*if context is lacking see original thread
edit: for profanity and font
Last edited:
The declining ratio of girls to boys in India in the last decade due to the elimination of girls by sex-selective abortion and infanticide, practices that must end, has been stated as a source of concern in a report presented by the head of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. The data showed that the girl-to-boy ratio had dropped to fewer than 800 per 1,000 in some parts of the country.
These findings reveal an alarming trend, which must be addressed," Obaid said last week. "Discrimination against girls anywhere in the world is a social ill and human rights violation, which must be stopped.
Obaid said that the best way to end such practices was to recognize and promote the worth and inherent dignity of all individuals, female or male. "Girls and women should be able to develop their full potential as human beings," she said.
female slaughter
could we get this "world govt" ball rolling? i see no reason to put up with this. sanction the shit out of offenders. if that dont work, make em a pariah nation. zero contact. military intervention at 700 per 1000 ratio? 500 per 1000?
Last edited:
spookz:
Something to think about: The text you post in quotes is almost illegible because it's so small. As a result, I generally won't bother straining my eyes to read it. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I suggest you think about posting quotes at normal size. Sure, it means a bit more scrolling, but who really cares?
Something to think about: The text you post in quotes is almost illegible because it's so small. As a result, I generally won't bother straining my eyes to read it. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I suggest you think about posting quotes at normal size. Sure, it means a bit more scrolling, but who really cares?
Back to the topic...
Personally, I think that it is fine to judge other cultures by my own moral standards, for a number of reasons which I won't go into here. Instead, I'd like you to consider the moral relativists who might want to condemn me for my presumption in seeking to judge people of other beliefs.
Suppose you truly believe that every person has a right to his or her own moral views - that morality is completely subjective. Therefore, it follows that you will never condemn anybody for holding a particular moral view. One consequence of this is that you can no longer condemn a Nazi for believing that Jews are morally inferior, since who are you to judge the Nazi worldview?
More to the point for the current discussion, you can no longer condemn <b>me</b> for presuming to judge other cultures by <b>my</b> moral standards. After all, as a moral relativist, you believe that my views are my own, and you are not allowed to criticise them. Therefore, you cannot condemn me for applying my moral system to other cultures; that would be pure hypocrisy, inconsistent with the moral relativist stance.
My point is, therefore, that those who say we should not impose our morality on other cultures cannot condemn us for doing just that, without being hypocritical.
Personally, I think that it is fine to judge other cultures by my own moral standards, for a number of reasons which I won't go into here. Instead, I'd like you to consider the moral relativists who might want to condemn me for my presumption in seeking to judge people of other beliefs.
Suppose you truly believe that every person has a right to his or her own moral views - that morality is completely subjective. Therefore, it follows that you will never condemn anybody for holding a particular moral view. One consequence of this is that you can no longer condemn a Nazi for believing that Jews are morally inferior, since who are you to judge the Nazi worldview?
More to the point for the current discussion, you can no longer condemn <b>me</b> for presuming to judge other cultures by <b>my</b> moral standards. After all, as a moral relativist, you believe that my views are my own, and you are not allowed to criticise them. Therefore, you cannot condemn me for applying my moral system to other cultures; that would be pure hypocrisy, inconsistent with the moral relativist stance.
My point is, therefore, that those who say we should not impose our morality on other cultures cannot condemn us for doing just that, without being hypocritical.
nice take tho rather semantical. is it circular? (brain hurt)
i prefer to invest all humans with basic human rights..right to liberty...blah!
impinge and face condemnation. this is the 21st century!
apart from abiding by those fundamentals, you are free to run the gamut of human expression unhindered
i prefer to invest all humans with basic human rights..right to liberty...blah!
impinge and face condemnation. this is the 21st century!
apart from abiding by those fundamentals, you are free to run the gamut of human expression unhindered
The primary recommendation I'd make is to kill the color and the italics. I use Times as well, but I don't have any problems reading it on my monitor if I use black text. The italics might be problematic for some. I, personally, need to keep that in mind. (Even I've used blocks of Times italic, so ....)
But I might as well ask ... is this legible to your eye, James R?
And no, the quote is not exactly relevant, but I just needed a block of text to grab for an example. This was the first out of Google.
sorry, saw that quote and felt i had to join in.
"It holds that an individual’s identity and personal worth are determined by ethnic/racial membership "
No.
"and that all cultures are of equal worth, regardless of their moral views or how they treat people."
Not exactly.
"Multiculturalism holds that ethnic identity should be a central factor in educational and social policy decisions. "
No, last I knew, it held the opposite, that ethnic identity sholdnt play any part in policy decisions, except insofar as you understand that an individuals ethnic/ cultural identity is part of them, and that decisions might adversly affect them simply becuase their culture/ ethnicity happens to be different.
"Multiculturalism is a threat to education: instead of encouraging students to question their assumptions and the assumptions of their parents and society, multiculturalism demands that students accept blindly what they’re given. "
funny, I thought that was consumerism, fascism, and several other things. Multiculturalism on the other hand can lead to as much otehr questioning, starting with, for example, "Why do they not celebrate christmas?"
"multiculturalism demands obedience to authority: the authority of the ethnic group."
No. It demands nothing except that you should respect the fact that others are different from you and not hold it against them. Is that so hard?
"It holds that an individual’s identity and personal worth are determined by ethnic/racial membership "
No.
"and that all cultures are of equal worth, regardless of their moral views or how they treat people."
Not exactly.
"Multiculturalism holds that ethnic identity should be a central factor in educational and social policy decisions. "
No, last I knew, it held the opposite, that ethnic identity sholdnt play any part in policy decisions, except insofar as you understand that an individuals ethnic/ cultural identity is part of them, and that decisions might adversly affect them simply becuase their culture/ ethnicity happens to be different.
"Multiculturalism is a threat to education: instead of encouraging students to question their assumptions and the assumptions of their parents and society, multiculturalism demands that students accept blindly what they’re given. "
funny, I thought that was consumerism, fascism, and several other things. Multiculturalism on the other hand can lead to as much otehr questioning, starting with, for example, "Why do they not celebrate christmas?"
"multiculturalism demands obedience to authority: the authority of the ethnic group."
No. It demands nothing except that you should respect the fact that others are different from you and not hold it against them. Is that so hard?
We have a moral duty to treat all people with the upmost respect. God gave us each others and God does not want us to judge one another, but to accept each others for who we all are. It does not matter of what our racial, or ethnic background is or what our religious belief is or even if we don't even believe in God.
That's all and remember, God
loves all of us and God gave us each other for divine reasons and God want us to have respect for one another...
----------------------------------
[COLOR=DARK RED]†††[/COLOR]God Loves All Of Us[COLOR=DARK RED]†††[/COLOR]
That's all and remember, God
loves all of us and God gave us each other for divine reasons and God want us to have respect for one another...----------------------------------
[COLOR=DARK RED]†††[/COLOR]God
Loves All Of Us[COLOR=DARK RED]†††[/COLOR]