Multiculturalism is dead

[al Roumi]

Firstly, thanks for your patience Sasaki –I was away for a long weekend without the time to give this a proper answer/thought. I think it’s fair to point at a couple of assumptions in my argument, I’ll try to delve into them now.

I agree that a simple disagreement or difference of opinion doesn’t mean that both parties are right. However, I do think that when the valuation of what is right is subjective, that neither party can claim to be right over the other.

This is where my point regarding cultural values defining some aspects of morality comes in. I completely agree that morality is generated by experience and rationalising, but I do maintain that there is room for culture and ideology to play a part in these experience and rationality.

Abstaining from causing various forms of harm to “thy neighbour” seems to be a near universal moral, but when we look at things where the definition of harm varies –or where there are multiple and alternative “harms” consequent of the initial dilemma or circumstance, “moral” individuals will knowingly perpetuate systems and actions which cause harm for the greater good.

It is this kind of situation, of far greater complexity and consequence than “x harms y therefore x is wrong/bad/immoral”, that I have been referring to in our discussion.

To give you an example: As we might say the west values liberty and freedom of expression above all, some cultures value tradition and respectfulness above all. These are not equal or opposite sets of values, but they have some areas of mutual agreement, as well as contradiction. So, as the west claims it is vital that women are treated equally to men, other cultures might agree that women should be treated fairly, but without undermining their patriarchal social norms –hence not actually treating women equally to men. I know which view I agree with more, but I cannot say which view is, in an absolute sense, correct or wrong either.

What would actually make one wrong and the other right? A comparative Marxist/materialist view of a society's productivity? Surely one gauges or measures the worth of each position according to one’s personal scale/view. This subjective scale is, IMO, itself defined by what one values - hence westerners valuing outcomes according to the degree of liberty and equality and others according to the degree of tradition and respectfulness. This is circular reasoning, but I would venture that this circularity is actually why the talking past each other happens.

How can we objectively measure (the cornerstone of moral realism afaik from wikipedia) the outcomes when the criteria by which the outcomes are appreciated are subjective? Until one can transcend these cultural or personal values and propose a solution of objective, independent or mutually understandable worth, neither party will see eye to eye.