Multiculturalism is dead

[gaelic cowboy]

I have trouble making the correct phrases in english too

Tommy Tiernan summed it up best here

"The English language is like a brick wall between me and you, and is my chisel" (insert common Irish swear word)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As I said in my reply to stranger, it is hard to say what exactly the basis for morality is, and it is often difficult to argue for one moral position over the other. The good thing about multiculturalism is that it acknowledges this, and is thus an improvement over the idea it largely replaced. But it should only acknowledge that it is difficult. It is not that neither party can claim to be right, it is that they cannot merely claim to be right, they must try and show that they are right.

I don't think though, that valuation of what is right is subjective. It is not a matter of arbitrary taste. And I think if we look at the differences in rules, we will see that they are not based on differences in taste. It is wrong to not tip your bartender in America, but not wrong in England (as I understand it). But we would not conclude that whether one should tip is subjective. In America the hourly wage for a bartender is very low, and tips are supposed to make up the difference. In England that's not the case. On the surface it looks like a difference but underneath it's the same principle.

My values are things that can be distorted and wrong. This is something that has to be admitted. Someone who is extremely selfish values their own wallet over the person who's car the just hit before driving off. There's no subjectivity there--they are wrong. "Values" is a word that I think confuses. It kind of begs the question. My "values" are not necessarily to be "valued". They are not necessarily worth anything. If I am extremely selfish, they are bad values.

I would extend that to the culture that values having women be servile. If you look at all the things that go into backing up their moral beliefs, I think you would reject many of them. Selfishness on the part of the men, and fear on the part of the women, for example. How is it a matter of taste?

And even when I am earnest and well meaning in my moral beliefs, I can be wrong and would admit it if I could be shown how. I may believe that X results in Y when it does not. I may not have any personal experience with something, and therefore not add enough weigh to it in my evaluation. I may have an underlying bias due to the way the idea was first presented to me--perhaps it is something I was taught while young and never questioned.

I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of variation. I think how much we value security has a window of subjectivity, for example. There are genetic differences that have to do with that. But then I don't think the value of acknowledging and working with such legitimate subjective ranges is itself subjective.

Frankly I think that multiculturalism, in its combat with xenophobia, has taken to leaning on the "values are subjective" type of argument as a crutch. If you are arguing with a xenophobe it's natural to avoid exposing yourself by making difficult arguments about the basis of morality, and trying to figure out and judge what all the causes of disagreement are. It's difficult but it's better to do it, because we will get closer to the truth that way. If someone is arguing against Mexicans bringing their culture here, we should be able to do more than say that it is subjective whether their culture is bad. That grants equal legitimacy to the xenophobe. We should instead be able to argue that it is good.

[Beskar]

I don't think though, that valuation of what is right is subjective. It is not a matter of arbitrary taste. And I think if we look at the differences in rules, we will see that they are not based on differences in taste. It is wrong to not tip your bartender in America, but not wrong in England (as I understand it). But we would not conclude that whether one should tip is subjective. In America the hourly wage for a bartender is very low, and tips are supposed to make up the difference. In England that's not the case. On the surface it looks like a difference but underneath it's the same principle.

Everyone and everything wants a tip in America.

In England, everyone gets a good wage, and even then, we only tip 10% if the meal is good in a restaurant. That tip goes towards a bonus for all the staff, as the 'waiter/waitress' is only giving you a plate, it was the cook in the back which is doing the meal. You pay for what you ordered and you pay for everything, no hidden costs.

In America, random person opens door, then opens their hand. You are expected and pretty much "have" to tip or they go into an infernal rage. Even worse when they just take your money and they don't even give you your change, or even when you tip them, they cry about how you didn't tip them enough.

Then there is full of hidden costs. I remember using an American tour company for a holiday, they had so many hidden costs, it was unbelievable. It turns out they don't even pay the bus driver or the tour guide and you are expected to pay their entire wage in tips. What kind of barmy system is that? When I pay for something, I expect to have paid for it. I don't budget for random throwing money at my wallet at people. They got in a rage when they only got £200 in tips, £200 is a lot of money, and they were wanting like £500-700.

(Oh and that Tour Company wasn't cheap itself either. What on earth did they do with the money that we had to pay them? Line their back pockets with it?)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Everyone and everything wants a tip in America.

In England, everyone gets a good wage, and even then, we only tip 10% if the meal is good in a restaurant. That tip goes towards a bonus for all the staff, as the 'waiter/waitress' is only giving you a plate, it was the cook in the back which is doing the meal. You pay for what you ordered and you pay for everything, no hidden costs.

You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's not how it works in the USA though. In the USA you pay for the drink, you don't pay for the waiter. So leaving without a tip is equivalent to not paying the waiter, basically.
In the UK/Netherlands/Germany/France/Belgium it's more like you pay for both, but if the waiter/house are any good it is custom to leave a tip; tips are pooled and divided according to some scheme among staff. So a venue where both quality and service of the product is top notch sees a generous additional income for its staff meaning an incentive for all concerned to do their best and more business (profit) for the venue too.

[The Stranger]

lets determine a few things.

1. If morals were objective this would mean that some people would be right in their moral beliefs and others wrong (since it is a known fact that some people have conflicting or even contradicting morals). However, even if it would be true that morals are objective, we have no way to find out which belief is objectively right and which one is objectively wrong.

2. The fact that we have no means to determine the truth of moral beliefs doesn't automatically entails that moral beliefs are (entirely) subjective, but it does make it more likely than if we had a method. The fact that people disagree about their morals doesn't mean that there is no truth in morals. However, accordingly the fact that certain people have similar morals doesnt mean that there is a universal truth in morals. We also need to remember that just because things are a certain way it doesnt mean it ought to be that way.

3. What needs to be established is the realm in which morals belong. Are they empiric statements? Are they taste judgments? Are they judgments of reason and ratio?


i also think that we need to take less drastic examples. Fur or No Fur? Who is right? And why? Are the people who object to fur on moral grounds right and all those people who have lived in the centuries before them wrong? How can we establish such a thing?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

lets determine a few things.

1. If morals were objective this would mean that some people would be right in their moral beliefs and others wrong (since it is a known fact that some people have conflicting or even contradicting morals). However, even if it would be true that morals are objective, we have no way to find out which belief is objectively right and which one is objectively wrong.

2. The fact that we have no means to determine the truth of moral beliefs ...

It's true that objective morality doesn't entail us being able to figure it out. But why do you say we have no way to find out? I think it's at least as tough to claim that it's a fact that we can't determine the truth of a belief as it is to claim that a basic moral (like murder) is factual.

3. What needs to be established is the realm in which morals belong. Are they empiric statements? Are they taste judgments? Are they judgments of reason and ratio?

The basics are self evident given adequate reasoning ability and information, and a person who is looking for a fact about it and not trying to grind an axe.

i also think that we need to take less drastic examples. Fur or No Fur? Who is right? And why? Are the people who object to fur on moral grounds right and all those people who have lived in the centuries before them wrong? How can we establish such a thing?

Well is a less drastic example the same as a more ambiguous example? How about, say, I promise to pick you up somewhere and then don't because I was watching a mildly amusing tv show.

But the animal rights movement is based in part on empirical claims about animal cognition. And the argument against fur would have to go further and show that the people wearing it were somehow immorally ignorant.

[Furunculus]

You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.

don't want decent service, i want a hassle-free drink.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've never seen my parents tip anyway. Heh, don't mind us miserly Scots, we're worse than the Jews!

I've heard there is a saying on the continent that when something is unfairly priced, it's known as Scots-price or something like that. Does such a saying exist?

[gaelic cowboy]

You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.

I drank in a place where drink was free in Iowa IIRC it was in Cedar Rapids, you had to tip the bartender but twas all free I thinkit was called Drunken Monkey or summit.

When I got home no one would believe me this place existed it just seemed to fantastic like a magical gumdrop land with chocolate houses and all.

If it was not for the Atlantic and another few hours driving from Chicago there would be planeloads of Irish intent on seeing the delights of Iowa.