Multiculturalism is dead

[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?

[al Roumi]

WARNING! WALL OF TEXT

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.

There is cross cultural difference in reasoning. An absolute or impartial means of measurement is needed to ensure equal understanding across cultural divides. Otherwise, without a mutually understood and appreciated scale or set of rules, people just talk past each other (as I suspect we have been doing for a good while now).

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?

Yes and no, you are talking about harm, which is not always a determinant of cultural value. There are people oppressed in any society, they feel harm every day, their culture still accepts it –even perpetuates it. The individual who even feels harmed will often also accept it because it is the norm in their culture.

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.

I’m sorry to be the punctilious but you’re not setting a great example to follow. This “broad brush” is a continuation of your own strokes, I was following your own example –or more accurately, Louis’.

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.

Acceptable [behaviour] – to that culture. 50 points to Sasaki.

When you say “some of them are wrong”, you mean that YOU think some of them are wrong. That does not make them wrong in a universal sense, just because you say they are.

The word you used says that not only did they treat it that way, they were not wrong to do so.

EXACTLY. Human societies can and do include a massive range of values and behaviors which can, when contrasted, appear utterly bizarre to one another. Yet, each will be “right” or accepted by its own culture, while denigrated by the other. Who is to say which one is more right than the other? We in the modern West think slavery is wrong, yet it was an integral part of many societies and cultures for eons. We can call it wrong all we like, contemporaries would no doubt not share such views. Please don’t fall for the hubris that we are better than our predecessors, different –yes.

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.

Disagreement, based on contrary cultural beliefs is rarely zero sum. This is why I am banging on about different moral scales, as two such scales (as with Celsius and Fahrenheit) will each measure the same behavior (temperature) with different but confusable outcomes, i.e. 30 degrees –which as you’ll agree means something quite different in Celsius than in Fahrenheit. The difference of opinion is caused by how each “scale” or culture interprets the behavior –the analogy being the equations at the heart of each scale and the interplay of values held by given cultures.

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.

By the “prescriptive sense”, do you mean a culturally prescribed value (which would be, to all intents and purposes identical to a culturally derived value) or a culture prescribing a value on others?

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.

What I am saying is that they are entitled to believe whatever they do, that no other culture is independently certifiable as better or worse than another, and so no culture has the legitimacy (beyond that which it awards itself) to accuse another of wrong doing/immorality.

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.

So you are trying to say that morality is a personal thing, determined by an individual’s feeling and reasoning? I have to agree with this to an extent, but I think you are, and you show it elsewhere, unaware or blind to the effect of the wider culture of which you are a member. You would have to be a hermit for your morality and values to be purely defined by personal experience. Do you not think your culture, embodied by people around you, have shaped your own morals and values in any way?

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

I am opining that cultural perceptions create a multiplicity of views on a given subject, each derived by reasoning, but differentiated in their outcomes by the variables that are cultural values. Furthermore, I am saying that no single culture is more “correct” than another, as the measures of correctness are determined by that same culture’s values. Yes, this is self deterministic but unless you have recognition of shared values across cultures, there can be no mutually recognized comparison.

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?

I’m a little flabbergasted. Don’t you think openness, liberty and freedom for self analysis are cornerstones of western democratic culture? Might your world view and values not be different were you Iranian, Russian or Chinese?

Also, can’t you see how your own education from birth to adulthood is a (benign?) form of cultural indoctrination?