Multiculturalism is dead

[Louis VI the Fat]

So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?

Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

[Hax]

Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'

Not Dar al-Islam, dar al-Salaam. Although the root of both Islam and Salam are the same, the meaning is somewhat more elusive. And it did not come from Abu Hanifa, but from Ibn Taymiyyah, who did indeed live in the thirteenth century.

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

Seeing how the principles of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb weren't built during Muhammad's lifetime, but rather during a time of political turmoil is very important when it comes to the designation of the West in the eyes of the Islamic world.

[al Roumi]

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

...and slap bang in the middle of the period of greatest threat to Muslim states by foreign aggression and occupation -crusades/outre-mer and the Mongols (who were to a degree Nestorian Christians).

[Fragony]

The Qu'ran being written during Mohammed's is controversial, and the Hadith being written after his death is an absolute certainty, dates are not terribly important unless you let someone live 500 years after he did. No it's very much Dar al-Islaam and that can be interpreted as Dar al-Salaam (no need for war in the House of Islam, lotsa infighting for historical perspective, things were falling apart) with which islamist reformers tried to replace it with, somewhere in the period you mention.

[Rhyfelwyr]

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

[Fragony]

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

Sure but the history of the Islamic world just happens to be fascinating and discussing it is always fun. Of course it's irrelevant but we are on page 6 most OT has been said.

[Hax]

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

[Fragony]

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

Why should we care about any of that? Screw their fatwas, it's not relevant to us we have different laws. I don't care if it upsets them. The more upset the better really when it comes to Islam, the sooner they are used to seeing Mohammed being raped by a donkey the better (disclaimer non-Dutch won't understand this). Puts getting the finger over something trivial gently in perspective.

[al Roumi]

Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

Ahem, that's more or less EXACTLY what Al Qaida say... Or at least they point to the crusades and say "see, there is precendent! What the Christians are doing now is the same -more crusading".

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway?

Well, it's pretty relevant to Muslims because much in Islam looks back to the prophet. The Hadith is (in some ways) essentially a book to help you live your life like he did.

[Fragony]

Ahem, that's more or less EXACTLY what Al Qaida say... Or at least they point to the crusades and say "see, there is precendent! What the Christians are doing now is the same -more crusading".

So what?

[al Roumi]

So what?

Well, while the west may have moved on to the point where "crusade" just means a concerted effort to do something, it still basicaly means "religious war against us" to some Muslims. So it's relevant to them and so is indirectly relelvant to you, as you probably wouldnt have so much to post about if some Muslims were not so sensitive about external attack.

[al Roumi]

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

Really? Is it only a personal opinion - like a preference of sweets over cauliflower - whether or not six million Jews should be exterminated?

Do you accept any morality at all?
If you happen upon a fourteen year old girl, who fell of her bicycle, is there moral equivalence between the man who calls an ambulance then lends her his cellphone to call her parents, and the man who drags her into nearby bushes, abuses her, then murders her to destroy the evidence of his act?

Even if current post-modern philosophy can pinpoint neither absolute truths nor morals, absolute moral relativism is a practical dead end. Resenment of absolutes, of people and ideologies claiming absolute truths should not mean one should fall for the trap of going the other extreme, to deny any morality or truth at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things.

Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.

[al Roumi]

Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.

I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.

Well, obviously there is no mutually agreed arbiter. And "absolute scale" draws to mind the image of a giant ruler. But this is all beside the point. I thought we had got over the idea that people disagreeing make it so that there is no truth about the matter.

If hitler's reasoning is:

1) the jews made germany lose WWI and are responsible for the current economic situation, etc.
2) such people deserve extermination
3) therefore they should be exterminated

It is obvious that if (1) is false than he is wrong, regardless of whether he is convinced of his logic and reasoning. You are supporting a much broader conclusion than you claimed to earlier. Your argument fits better to claiming that we can't know whether (2) is true or false, which has been much more debated in philosophy than whether (1) can be true or false. You agree that Hitler can be absolutely wrong about the Jews having caused Germany to lose WWI, etc.

But you have not made a case for the claim that we can't know moral facts. You have only said that we disagree and then talked about how it is better for society if we tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is separate from whether there are moral facts or not.

Would you say for example that we can't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent children for fun? That it's just our opinion etc?

I have the very frustrating suspicion that your going to say something like "oh yes well of course there are moral facts like that old chap, but obviously it's chauvinist to expect all cultures to have the same moral ideas about food" and then a week later you'll be talking about how you don't know whether the holocaust was wrong again.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again?


Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?


Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.

[The Stranger]

And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again?


Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?


Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.

who is we?

and why do you expect someone learn english if he moves to the us?

[The Stranger]

1) is not a moral fact it is an empirical fact.

so if 1) is wrong than hitler would be wrong for persecuting the jews, because his reasoning would be flawed, he would not be morally wrong, atleast that is still debatable.

of 2) it is the question whether it is objectively true or whether it is an opinion. (the fact that people disagree indeed doesnt mean there arent moral facts, it only means that it is hard or impossible to determine whether there are and if there which there are.)

[al Roumi]

Well, obviously there is no mutually agreed arbiter. And "absolute scale" draws to mind the image of a giant ruler. But this is all beside the point. I thought we had got over the idea that people disagreeing make it so that there is no truth about the matter.

It isn't beside the point, this IS my point. You are consistently trying to talk about something else.

If hitler's reasoning is:

1) the jews made germany lose WWI and are responsible for the current economic situation, etc.
2) such people deserve extermination
3) therefore they should be exterminated

It is obvious that if (1) is false than he is wrong, regardless of whether he is convinced of his logic and reasoning. You are supporting a much broader conclusion than you claimed to earlier. Your argument fits better to claiming that we can't know whether (2) is true or false, which has been much more debated in philosophy than whether (1) can be true or false. You agree that Hitler can be absolutely wrong about the Jews having caused Germany to lose WWI, etc.

1 is wrong if you can provide him with evidence to counter his reasoning that jews were "the problem", but it would not obviate his underlying anti-semitism. You would not counter his anti-semitism, I think that animosity runs deaper than macro-economic explanations.

But you have not made a case for the claim that we can't know moral facts. You have only said that we disagree and then talked about how it is better for society if we tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is separate from whether there are moral facts or not.

Would you say for example that we can't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent children for fun? That it's just our opinion etc?

I have the very frustrating suspicion that your going to say something like "oh yes well of course there are moral facts like that old chap, but obviously it's chauvinist to expect all cultures to have the same moral ideas about food" and then a week later you'll be talking about how you don't know whether the holocaust was wrong again.

My point is that while we may have the moral fact that the holocaust was "wrong", others didn't -and don't. Why? Simply because they have a different moral scale or valuation -that could be to do with acceptance of the methods of genocide for use against a perceived enemy, or anti-semitism. This is what makes it impossible to assume that morality is uniform accross cultures. While you've picked an extreme example, I'm sure cultures could and have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable.

I'm also not saying that everything is ok to me as long as its cultural! Rather, while I or you might disagree with something, it could well be ok to someone else because their culture tolerates or values it. Furthermore, because that agreement/disagreement is based on culturaly determined values, it is not a matter where there is an absolute measure of truth to either position -so neither party is legitimised in simply saying that the other is "wrong".

In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It isn't beside the point, this IS my point. You are consistently trying to talk about something else.

Your point is something that is irrelevant? I don't think you mean that. Talk of mutually agreed arbiters (sounds like a person) and giant rulers in the sky is what's beside the point. Their lack of existence is what's beside the point, because they are not required for us to be able to say that something is wrong. All we need is an understanding of language, reasoning ability, and human feelings.

1) someone betrays us out of meanness, we have a human feeling about it
2) We understand what the word "wrong" means, because we understand how words get meanings and know that the definitions can't be made up by someone with no regard to that
3) We see that given the meaning of wrong and how we felt earlier, that person was wrong and we would be too if we did it

Fill in all of the other things that all of the non-sociopathic people with intact reasoning skills and an understanding of language agree on...eg killing our children for fun.

btw, as a pre-posting this note, my sincere belief is that you are simply using language incorrectly, nothing about sociopathy or reasoning skills. You can see how our disagreement stems from you defining morality differently. Yours seems to be "things taught by a childs parents" while mine generally follows the above framework. I think even rules that are told to children they learn through that experience. Don't you? Don't you think you have the ability to break away from a cultural rule that offends your senses and reason?

1 is wrong if you can provide him with evidence to counter his reasoning that jews were "the problem", but it would not obviate his underlying anti-semitism. You would not counter his anti-semitism, I think that animosity runs deaper than macro-economic explanations.

The point was simply that some moral conclusions are based on facts about the world that even you would agree can be wrong...and that people will often stop believing their conclusion in that case. You were painting with too broad a brush.

My point is that while we may have the moral fact that the holocaust was "wrong", others didn't -and don't. Why? Simply because they have a different moral scale or valuation -that could be to do with acceptance of the methods of genocide for use against a perceived enemy, or anti-semitism. This is what makes it impossible to assume that morality is uniform accross cultures. While you've picked an extreme example, I'm sure cultures could and have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable.

I'm also not saying that everything is ok to me as long as its cultural! Rather, while I or you might disagree with something, it could well be ok to someone else because their culture tolerates or values it. Furthermore, because that agreement/disagreement is based on culturaly determined values, it is not a matter where there is an absolute measure of truth to either position -so neither party is legitimised in simply saying that the other is "wrong".

But some of them are wrong. You are claiming that people (including you) can't be wrong about these things. But all you offer as an argument is repetition of the claim that they disagree, in gussied up language. You equivocate a lot, for example:

"I'm sure cultures have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable"

Disregarding the fact that this is a bizarre claim to start with...it would never have been acceptable. Accepted is the word you are looking for--it just states a fact about how people treated it. The word you used says that not only did they treat it that way, they were not wrong to do so.

You say that moral facts are things that someone can "have", but would be more appropriate for beliefs. Facts are something you know. Two people can have contradictory beliefs but they can't know contradictory facts.

You talk about "different moral scales" which implies equal validity (like celsius vs fahrenheit or something) when in fact all we have again is disagreement.

You say we can't assume that "morality is uniform across cultures" but here you are using morality in the descriptive sense--all you are saying once again is that people disagree. This says nothing about morality in the prescriptive sense.

You say it could be "ok to someone else...because their culture values it" which implies that it is alright for them to believe it, but all you say is that they do in fact believe it.

Oh and one whopper of a falsehood at the end where you claim the disagreement is based on cultural values. How on earth do you think our conception of morality has changed so drastically over time? It's because we base it on our feelings and reasoning.

Basically at this point I'm just going to say, believe whatever it is you want to believe but talk about it plain language. Say "culture A believes one thing and culture B believes another" ok? And then if you want to argue that neither can be right, do so, don't fiddle with the English language to avoid it. Morality is something about which there are no facts, this is a claim you are making. Widespread disagreement is not evidence that there are no facts. You have to explain why words don't mean what the fluent speakers of the language say they mean--how they have a secret philosophical true meaning. I hope at least that even though you still disagree you can get that you aren't really arguing, just stating basics with a heavy dose of implication.

At least then our posts will be shorter

In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?

Speak for yourself

They would have to have a hardcore indoctrination program to achieve a significant amount of people around the world believing what they did wasn't wrong. You have a scary view of the power of culture over the human mind. Are my views about the hiroshima bombings set by the fact that the US was on the winning side? How about the bombings of dresden? Japanese internment camps? How does the world feel about that today?