A while back, on my old blog, I triggered a lot of anger by pointing out that if you applied the same standards to Victorian America as the "Arab culture is rotten to the core" folks do to the Middle East, the revered pioneer ancestors who built America suddenly turn into . . . a bunch of sick monsters whose culture was rotten to the core.
Now Bryan Caplan is poking the same hornet's nest:
Critics of multi-culturalism often mock its proponents for (a) cultural relativism and (b) disrepecting Columbus. The problem, as I've explained before, is that Columbus was a pioneer of slavery and barbarism. The only way to excuse his behavior is to say "Oh, you can't judge Columbus by our standards. In those days, people thought that slavery was OK. Everyone was doing it."If that excuse makes sense to you, you're a cultural relativist. Change your heroes, or change your meta-ethics!
This cuts both ways, of course: you cannot, as some leftists do, simultaneously argue that pre-1960s Western culture was rotten with sexism, racism, etc., and also that you cannot judge people living in non-Western cultures by our own standards. If the equality of all men and women really is such a universal truth that it is reasonable to demand that Victorians should have divined it, then it is also reasonable to expect the tribes of Papua New Guinea have done the same.
Myself, I'm an unabashed cultural relativist. I don't think it's reasonable to hold either our ancestors, or our brethren abroad, to our cultural standards. But I think its especially unreasonable to apply those standards only to select groups of people I already have reason to dislike.
In a similar vein, the Anne Applebaums of the world attack the left for not seeing the vast superiority of Western culture to that of Islamic culture, and ridicule the left's dedication to tolerance and multiculturalism. But tolerance and multiculturalism are products of Western culture. They praise the Enlightenment, and yet they mock its values or their consequences. I think this gets back to that D'Souza tension, the fact that the right, who claim to hate Islamism more than anyone, share some basic values with Islamists.
There's a fairly large difference between comparing practice A negatively to practice B in a globalized world where the practitioners of A are well aware of B, and criticizing people for practicing A in a world where B didn't exist.
And, of course, there's an even bigger difference between criticizing cultures and criticizing individuals as if their culture didn't exist!
There is a possible out in that you can look at not where a culture is at but its trajectory. (something like the first derivative of civilization). this is basically the standard reason for admiring thomas jefferson (and for that matter, athens), the idea of "yes they had slaves but so did everybody else and it was jefferson/athens alone that had ideas which would eventually abolish slavery." the problem with this (from a conservative perspective) is that it makes a fetish of progress which turns the whole burkean thing on its head.
I see two problems with this analysis, Megan.
1) I don't see a problem with admiring an individual (Columbus or Saladin, say) while disapproving of the larger culture in which that individual exists (roughly speaking, the medieval Mediterranean for both of them).
2) I don't think relativism is an all or nothing thing, like say, pregnancy. (Maybe that makes me a meta-relativist). I can say that Columbus was one of the most admirable people of his time, or that the reign of Harun al Rashid was comparatively enlightened without giving up the ability to state that modern Arab culture is worse than that of al Rashid's time, and is among the least constructive to be found in the modern age.
Watch the broad brush, folks... there is no monolithic "right" that has a set of common, unwavering beliefs. Just as there is no monolithic "left" that has a set of common, unwavering beliefs.
I'm more "right" than "left" and I hate "Islamism" if that's what you call the violent straing of Islam that seeks world domination and has no qualms about killing to achieve this goal.
On the other hand, Columbus was an explorer seeking to find trade routes to the East. As JSinger pointed out, there was no modern western democracy for him to see. He can't exactly be blamed for everything that happened after he "discovered" the Americas.
As far as tolerance and multiculturism being products of Western thought and the Enlightenment, anything can be taken to an extreme. It's one thing to be tolerant of differences and respect people who believe differently from you. It's quite another to accept that all cultures are equal and that there is no right or wrong. Taking the time to learn about another culture and accepting that different is not necessarily bad doesn't mean that you have to accept all differences as being equal.
Islamic/Arab culture has had its ups and downs and there are certainly good things there. But that doesn't mean that the terrorism, anti-semitism, intolerance and oppression of women, gays, and heretics is dandy. Most Westerners condemn the Inquisition, slavery, religious wars and persecution, etc... as being unacceptable and not worthy of praise.
EI
I think this is a serious post, so try to take my commentary as thoughtful assistance rather than criticism.
But is the type of anti-western-culture showed by the "left" the same as the anti-Arab-culture shown by the "right." It seems like the problem is far more diffuse. For one, as Freddie noted, there are similar qualities between the conservative worldview and the Arabist one. I don't think its fair to say that when most liberals attack some aspect of Western culture, its pure self-hatred - its not like they're attacking the Western culture's tolerance towards homosexuality EVEN THOUGH THEY GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT ATTITUDE. Nor is the liberal attacks as timely as the conservative one - whether Jefferson owned slaves and should be criticized for it doesn't seem to effect the moral question of whether we should allow slavery today.
It seems like the two criticisms have different motives and different structures - one is about how we see the moral aspects of our own past, and the other is how we judge a political culture and what to do about it in the hear and now. While I agree that there is some hypocrisy across the two "stances" - and believe that there is more nuance among each than either side would like to admit - I don't think one can equally compare the two. I think its important to inflect upon what it means for "western culture" when its core values involved the racial oppression of core minorities, who now comprise a substantial portion of that value. I don't think that means we should stop reading Beowulf, though - and I don't know that many liberals who would disagree.
But where was I to start? The world is so vast, I shall start with the country I knew best, my own. But my country is so very large. I had better start with my town. But my town, too, is large. I had best start with my street. No, my home. No, my family. Never mind, I shall start with myself.
~Elie Wiesel
Isn't the point rather that historically there were differences between civilized and ethical men and ethical societies?
For example, many ethical individuals, no matter when and where they lived, have realized from an early age that discrimination per se is bad and NOT where and how you apply it. They realized that if it is bad to mistreat blacks or women - it might also be bad to mistreat children and animals. The point was NEVER are they civilized or intelligent or useful but - can they suffer?
Maybe those few individuals were genetically smarter than the average citizen or maybe, historically, we have culturally more evolved to follow than to question?
Society is rarely as smart and logical and ethical as certain individuals and has to learn this step by step. First they liberate men (Solon), then slaves, then even women, then children and one day maybe animals... Society is dumb an cannot see the unity and the universality and has to learn everything anew at every step.
Individuals are actually smarter - they realize sooner that there are natural laws that apply everywhere equally - like gravity. Individuals are more capable of seeing the differences in degree and the similarities in kind - societies not or only very very slowly.
Every religion for example - teaches kindness towards all of God's creations and but the masses do not want to hear this. I think this is because the masses do not think highly of themselves and need to identify with the higher good of belonging..?
In this respect - as society changes slowly - comparing past societies to modern-day standards is not useful!!! I am with Megan on this one - a cultural relativist...
..but I am not so much an individual relativist!
Here some great quotes from some great individuals:
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race in its gradual improvement to leave off eating animals.
~Henry David Thoreau
Kindness and compassion towards all living beings is a mark of a civilized society. Racism, economic deprival, dog fighting and cock fighting, bullfighting and rodeos are all cut from the same defective fabric: violence. Only when we have become nonviolent towards all life will we have learned to live well ourselves.
~Cesar Chavez
The philosophy behind vivisection, the sacrifice of creatures we regard as 'inferior' beings, differs little from that behind the concentration camp or the slave trader.
~Aga Khan (Prince Sadruddin)
Humanity's true moral test, its fundamental test, consists of its attitude toward those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect, human kind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.
~Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the over-population of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat.
~Jeremy Rifkin, Beyond Beef
The human spirit is not dead. It lives on in secret . . . It has come to believe that compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind. Any religion or philosophy which is not based on a respect for life is not a true religion or philosophy.
~Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize address: The Problem of Peace in the World Today
I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
~Abraham Lincoln
Would not these facts prevent us from achieving happiness, and therefore the conditions necessary to the building of a just society, if we pursue a desire to eat animals? Yes, they would so prevent us.
~Socrates
Another difference between cultures that exist in the present and those that exist in the past is that the former exist in the present; the latter in the past.
Therefore, if I criticize contemporary Arab culture, it is with an eye to improving (or, if I am a Bond villian, eliminating) that culture. If I criticize revolutionary era American culture, which I am happy to do so, it is solely as an academic exercise.
Myself, I'm an unabashed cultural relativist. I don't think it's reasonable to hold either our ancestors, or our brethren abroad, to our cultural standards.
Really? You don't think it's reasonable to expect (demand/pressure/advocate/etc) the Saudis to let women drive? vote?
Not reasonable to expect (demand/pressure/advocate/etc) modern slaveholders in (say) Africa to cease the practice of slavery? child soldiers?
That would be a crazy position, and therefore I presume not yours. So what is your real position?
There's a slight hole in Caplan's logic. You CAN, of course, say "Our forefathers were proponents of barbarism and slavery. Let us not betray their vision. Yay, barbarism and slavery!"
(Not MY point of view. But I'm sure you'd get a "Damn straight!" from SOME quarters.)
I don't think that there is an either/or dichotomy. One should be able to judge cultures on their relative merits but one should also try to understand cultures within the context of their own histories.
Was Columbus acting according to the norms of European society circa the 16th century? Absolutely! Did Columbus perform actions that we should consider to be morally repugnant? Absolutely!
I don't blame Columbus for failing to rise above the moral standards of his own era but, at the same time, I think that it's important that we recognize that those moral standards included a number of elements that I'm not afraid to call evil (e.g., slavery).
My objection to multiculturalism is that it recognizes the context of cultural differences while failing to concede that some moral systems are superior to others.
My objection to many of the opponents of multiculturalism are that they do the precise opposite by judging other cultures while failing to appreciate that cultures are shapes by historical and other contingencies and that judging other cultures on the basis of our own set of moral values is often problematic because we are frequently blind to our own contingent influences.
"you cannot, as some leftists do, simultaneously argue that pre-1960s Western culture was rotten with sexism, racism, etc., and also that you cannot judge people living in non-Western cultures by our own standards."
Except, that you can.
When putative leftists claim that pre 1960s Western culture was rotten with sexism and racism, they are (I hope) judging that era with respect to current norms and standards of moral judgment. The culture of pre-1960's America was not morally inscrutable--after one has developed some simple moral standards, can easily chart progress or detect a continuity from the past to the present. The different standards are separated temporally, not spatially.
Judging non-western cultures is a different matter. I can't even begin to fathom what the culture of India, or China, or Japan is like, past or present. In effect, as Burke argued, alien cultures are morally inscrutable. This is not to say that there are no universal norms. Rather, it is just so difficult to judge a culture that differs in so many respects. Its a matter of epistemology, not ethics.
Following up on what JWR said, Megan's position is crazy. It's perfectly reasonable to hold people responsible when they are confronted with an actual choice. So it doesn't make sense to criticize someone in ancient Rome for condoning slavery, since no one opposed slavery (and maybe societies at that technological level couldn't have existed without it), but it's perfectly reasonable to criticize someone in the South in 1850 for condoning slavery, since it was obviously possible to organize society without that institution and there were many people who opposed it. Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize societies today that are undemocratic, but it wouldn't make sense to criticize the Elizabethans on that ground. Now sometimes this rule is difficult to apply: clearly the Spanish explorers of the New World were in no position to establish democratic governments in the Americas, but their mistreatment of the natives was in fact criticized by their contemporaries.
A slightly different issue, but one that is sometimes confused with the issue of moral relativism, is the difficulty of determining what is a moral issue. (This is sometimes referred to as the taste/value dichotomy.) It isn't reasonable to criticize a person for preferring chocolate ice cream to vanilla, or to criticize a society for allowing (or not allowing) cousin marriage, because those aren't moral issues. I am always struck by how many people don't grasp this distinction at all.
JSinger has it right. This is category error. It is the difference, I think, between forgiveness and amorality.
An example: I can understand that Thomas Jefferson lived in a culture where it was permissible for him to hold slaves throughout his life. I can respect and honor honor his writing and his thought in spite of his history of holding men in bondage. (Indeed, I can honor the spirit of Revolutionary America in spite of the stain of slavery.) Today, if there was a man living down the way who was writing wonderful stuff about freedom and democracy and keeping slaves in his backyard, I'd call the cops.
Slavery is deplorable. The mistreatment of women is horrifying. Universally. That I'm willing to take a sypathetic view of past events that wouldn't conform to my present day expectations doesn't make me a relativist--it just makes me a realist.
Southpaw
Slavery IS deplorable?
http://www.peta.org.uk/animalliberation/display.asp
If that excuse makes sense to you, you're a cultural relativist. Change your heroes, or change your meta-ethics!
Well, those aren't the only options. There is another choice besides "Columbus was the anti-Christ" and "Columbus was a hero and a saint." One can admire his courage and vision without endorsing all his actions.
Bryan Caplan is a capable economist, but he is venturing here into philosophical terrain which is evidently foreign to him. The same goes for Megan McArdle (who hasn't realized that cultural relativism collapses under close logical scrutiny).
Incidentally, I recommend anyone who wants a balanced view of Columbus look at Howard Zinn's A People's Hitory... not for Zinn's own radical and rather uninteresting opinions, but for the passages from Bartolomeo de las Casas. He saw both the good and the bad in the man.
Megan, are you culturally relativistic enough to deny life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as absolute and inalienable (or unalienable, if you prefer the original)? Seems like you should be able to have some sort of stake in the ground even if you are willing to admit that things were bad then and they're better now. Otherwise, "bad" and "better" don't have much meaning.
I think JWR makes a good point.
I think the solution is to eliminate the idea of "blame" from evaluation of cultures. A culture is not an attempt at moral perfection, it is the shared, cumulative set of solutions to the problems of existance for a group of people. It seems a bit harsh to castigate entire groups of people for merely doing what their parents did to survive.
That's not to say we shouldn't act to change other cultures that are incompatible with our own. For one thing, it is a restraint we can not perform. Any interaction, even of the most benign sort, is cultural warfare. Simply prospering and being observed is an assault on other cultures. That's just the way it goes.
"The same goes for Megan McArdle (who hasn't realized that cultural relativism collapses under close logical scrutiny)." -Isocrates
Leaving aside whatever 'logical scrutiny' means... see Megan, the problem is you just haven't REALIZED that cultural relativism collapses!
I guess we can't have the Elvis stamp because that endorses drug use.
I guess we can't revere Ghandi because he said racist things.
I guess we can't draw from Caplan's moral philosophy because he eats animals instead of synthmeat. (Synthmeat doesn't exist, but it's not like we're going to make exceptions for people simply for being before 2056.)
There are several differences.
Firstly, today's standards did not EXIST in Columbus's times. Today's standards, well, do exist today.
It's different for someone to not respect human rights because they think it's a crock (Lenin, say), and for someone to not respect human rights because the VERY CONCEPT of rights inherent to every human being had yet to be invented (a slave trader in pre-Christian times, say).
Secondly, it's different to EXPLAIN something and to EXONERATE someone from something.
It's not inconsistent to believe an action to be inherently and objectively evil, and to point out that in the cultural/historical/whatever context it was understandable or to be expected (again, the slave thing). Using context in that way doesn't mean inconsistently exonerating someone from the evil or their actions, but simply explaining and putting them in their proper context.
I don't think you have to be a cultural relativist to extend respect to other cultures. At the same time, I don't think other cultures get a pass simply because they are "other."
For instance, while female genital mutilation may well be a "cultural" practice, I'm under no obligation to condone it.
There's another part missing to this debate, though - autonomy.
I disagree with genital mutilation, and believe ending it would be a good thing. However, I have to keep in mind that I cannot force other people to change, even if it's "for their own good." I can enourage, cajole, and try my damndest to persuade others to change, but, in the end, it is they who must change, not me who must change them.
That's where, I think, so many good intentions go awry. Democracy and liberal values are, I believe, good things. Those same values, though, also allow us to have the insight that they cannot be forced upon others, but must be freely chosen. Forget that lesson, and you get things like the invasion of Iraq.
Leaving aside whatever 'logical scrutiny' means... see Megan, the problem is you just haven't REALIZED that cultural relativism collapses!-rickm
Well Rick, if you don't know what logical scrutiny is, rational discussion with you might become diffcult, but I'll try. Cultural relativism runs into real problems for its proponents. It amounts to the proposition that no culture can be judged inferior to any other--that there is no overarching absolute standard by which to judge them and those living in them. But I'm sure Megan would say that the culture of Nazi Germany was grotesque and evil.
And this results in a contradiction. If Megan insists that one must only judge others by their own cultural standards, she cannot then logically turn around and judge the Nazis by her standards. By their own standards, Hitler and Goebels were doing noble things (I hasten to add that by my standards they were monsters).
And there are manifold other logical difficulties associated with cultural relativism. I could go in to them with you, if you are really interested, but if, as I suspect, you really just want to exchange insults--I don't have time for that.
After having read most comments here I have to say that I do agree with most of it. Language is linear and limited in expression. But I do not see fundamental disagreement in this debate. Most here can see both sides of the same coin and that is a rare good thing?
Peter - I agree with you that one cannot force certain values upon others. But it does happen - even in democracies. If the majority of men were to vote for the equality of women - there will be those who will be forced to comply to a certain degree - even if they do not agree that women are equal? A generation further down the line - most will have grown up with this new reality and not question it anymore as the generation before?
It is also important to note that it is not always a "negative" comparison going back in time. Often - older cultures had more social and ethical achievements to show than recent cultural developments. E.g. animals!
I have mentioned before that Bulgaria, an allay of Hitler, was one of the European nations who protected its Jews from German deportation. Here is a great historical speech by a Bulgarian politician that I thought is somehow fitting this discussion:
To think that the Jews constitute a threat to our nation and our state is pure fantasy... They are a weak minority who have never harmed us in any way whatsoever or threatened our identity or given anyone reason to think that they could threaten it in the future.
Nor can it be said that the Jews constitute a danger to us within the economic sector. The overwhelming majority of Bulgaria's Jews are working-class people, earning their livelihood in factories and workshops; some are artisans, retail merchants and employees; others are members of the liberal professions — lawyers, doctors, and dentists, who are as upstanding as they are hard-working. Jews involved in the commercial sector tend to own medium-sized businesses. For this reason, it would be unwise, unjustified, and cruel to single them out and restrict their right to earn a living.
Some people would like to portray the Jews as an amoral and criminal social element. That is a total fabrication. No nation has a monopoly on criminal behavior. Good qualities and bad qualities are characteristics of individuals, not of nations. What social or political group does not include criminals, both petty crooks and major felons? What flock does not have its black sheep? I will even go so far as to say there is less criminality among the Jewish minority than among any other Bulgarian national group. If our official statistics are to be trusted, there were 12,923 violent crimes (murders and aggravated assaults) committed between 1920 and 1935; thus, if the rate of criminality among the Jews was 0.85 per cent, there should have been 110 crimes committed by Jews; in fact there were only 14. The same holds true for burglaries and the rest. The rate of illegal currency trading among the Jews may have been higher, but that is due to their relatively greater participation in this economic sector, given that they do not take part in the others.
We used to be able to tell ourselves that all this was a thing of the past, but if we enact a law such as this one, we will have to undo centuries of social progress and return to the infamous Middle Ages when Jews wore yellow badges on their clothing, and were persecuted and robbed to line the pockets of kings and their vassals. Men have risen above that in modern times. As Gorky says, 'Man: how proud that sounds.' We no longer consider it acceptable to inflict cruelty on animals, yet now we are about to reduce thousands of innocent and law-abiding people to the status of half-men, of second-class citizens, a status far lower than that of any other minority, be it Turkish., Greek, Armenian, or Gypsy. Right now, in the Bulgarian National Assembly, whose authority derives solely from the Constitution, a horrifying and anti-constitutional law is being drafted, a shameful page of our history is being written.
And why? Are the people demanding these measures? No. Bulgarians are tolerant, hospitable, good; intolerance towards Jews is alien to them. Our working class harbors no such feelings.
The Bulgarian intelligentsia is to be commended: Lawyers and doctors, writers, and even some retired military officers and members of the reserve, and disabled servicemen as well, have taken public positions against this law. Our peasants do not think that Jews are trampling their fields, our Lawyers do not complain of any unfair and disloyal competition but then why is this law being proposed? That question troubles many of us, and so we have to ask ourselves whether it just might be that it is being imposed on us by foreigners and by foreign interests. For the sake of my country's honor, I will not believe that this is the case. But one thing is certain: this bull is the result of foreign propaganda.
If not for foreign propaganda, it would never have occurred to anyone to take such draconian and retrograde measures. We find it everywhere .. on the radio, in books and newspapers; travelers are bringing it back home with them from abroad. And now it has reached sweeping proportions. Germany and Italy are not the only countries that are dealing with the Jewish question; every country is doing so.
Victorian America?
I don't recall the U.S. having a monarch by that name.
[Y]ou cannot, as some leftists do, simultaneously argue that pre-1960s Western culture was rotten with sexism, racism, etc., and also that you cannot judge people living in non-Western cultures by our own standards.
The question of whether one could actually argue both of those things simultaneously is moot if there aren't actually any people so arguing. If there really are "some leftists" living outside freshman dormitories who argue both of those positions, I'd be quite surprised.
I guess the question comes down to whether cultures evince "progress" in their evolution. If so we may rightly judge the past deficient while at the same time recognizing that they could not see it that way since they had not yet progressed. Similarly, people in contemporary cultures that have not progressed are equally incapable of seeing their deficiencies. In the alternative, if progress is an illusion then we would be engaged in self-preference by preffering our ethics to those of other times or cultures.
The idea of progress in the evolution of life is almost universally rejected. But I tend to think that cultural evolution does show progress (at least at times). (This may be mere prejudice.) I don't view contemporary cultures that have not progressed any differently than historical cultures, though I may take a little more care in talking about them to avoid rudeness.
Hugo, I'm confused. Are you promoting Universal Veganism or Universal Zionism? Or both? Is this the manifesto of the Zionist Vegans?
Judging non-western cultures is a different matter. I can't even begin to fathom what the culture of India, or China, or Japan is like, past or present.
1) I don't think that's true, particularly the idea that 21st century Japan is so much more alien than 15th century Spain.
2) There doesn't seem to be any perceived barrier in the opposite direction. Arundhati Roy doesn't have any such squeamishness about judging us.
3) How many of the arguments for "diversity" and "multiculturalism" need to be thrown overboard to accommodate this new line of argument?
Victorian America?
I don't recall the U.S. having a monarch by that name.
Posted by Brock | October 9, 2007 2:34 PM
She's talking about the era and its moralistic environment.
Good point Megan,
"its especially unreasonable to apply those standards only to select groups of people I already have reason to dislike."
Sorta like insisting you'd never vote for someone who put their dog in a secure kennel on the roof of their car.
By your own reasoning, who are you to judge? A different time and place, things were different then.
The simple fact is, some things are wrong. Some cultures are wrong. If I went back in time and saw frequent honor killings in England or the Colonies like we have with Muslims today, I would not proclaim, "well, who am I to judge, their culture is different". I would forcely shout that what they are doing is wrong, terribly wrong.
When the moralists, abolitionists, etc. of their day saw what some on the fringe of society were getting away with (slavery, forced child labor, etc, etc.) they stood up and changed their society.
THAT IS what makes us better than our muslim neighboors. They seem unwilling, unable, or too scared to stand up to their brothers. I'm willing/hoping I'm wrong here and I'm just not hearing about it, but I don't see too many instance of muslims standing up to muslims in the media.
The point I want to make on the Columbus discussion is to admire the vision and determination to organize and execute the expedition, while deploring what he did subsequent to the initial voyage's success. While he didn't "discover" America he did "re-discover" it, and the voyage was indeed an epic worthy of remembrance. The horrors that came after are also worthy of remembrance, and I think it is fitting that Columbus Day serve both purposes.
liberalrob
I am promoting universal anti-slavery. I call it the Las Vegan!
The simple fact is, some things are wrong. Some cultures are wrong.
Bin Laden says YOUR culture is wrong. Yet he is Evil and you are Good.
I don't see too many instance of muslims standing up to muslims in the media.
A majority of muslim organizations made public statements deploring 9/11. A simple Google search brings up hundreds of links to Muslims denouncing terrorism and 9/11.
"If I went back in time and saw frequent honor killings in England or the Colonies": what, frequent killing of daughters or sisters, to applause from the rest of the family and the neighbours? Really? Massachussets, I suppose - always a sanctimonious bunch, eh?
THAT IS what makes us better than our muslim neighboors. They seem unwilling, unable, or too scared to stand up to their brothers.
Just like Christians seem unwilling, unable, or too scared to stand up to Dobson, Wildmon, and Robertson? What about Bill Donahue? Where are the public denunciations of those people, who have perverted Christian teachings for their own ends? Or are you going to rely on the liberal/Progressive blogosphere to do that dirty work so "mainstream" Christians don't have to?
Peter - I agree with you that one cannot force certain values upon others. But it does happen - even in democracies. If the majority of men were to vote for the equality of women - there will be those who will be forced to comply to a certain degree - even if they do not agree that women are equal? A generation further down the line - most will have grown up with this new reality and not question it anymore as the generation before?
Hugo,
I take your point, but I think, even in your example, one can point to ways that are more in line with autonomy and choice than others. For instance, had women's suffrage come about via a ruling by the Supreme Court, I'm doubtful it would have been as readily accepted and seen as legitimate as it currently is.
There were years of struggle to achieve woman's suffrage (there's actually a well-known book called "century of struggle" precisely about this), but all that investment of effort in persuading the nation to embrace suffrage, of its own volition, paid off. A world where that decision is reversed is impossible to imagine (which is why Coulter can make a "joke" of it, if that's what you call her writing).
In contrast, I think we can all, left and right, think of good examples of decisions made in less-democratic ways that have failed to be embraced by the nation with quite the same depth.
Well, Hugo, you can have my Top Round when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'm willing to work with you on humane livestock production practices, however.
lberalrob
Are you bonding or even flirting with me... I do not want to destroy the moment by saying something stupid?
Slave welfare is a good start before the public understands the value of abolition.
If it takes too long we can still engage in a Civil War? But cheers for stretching out a wing!
Peter Bautista:if that's what you call her writing
I have no problem calling Ann Coulter's writing a joke. And a joke in very poor taste, to boot.
Hugo:Are you bonding or even flirting with me
Just friendly discussion, light-hearted but serious at the same time. Left-wingers are not all shrill and hateful. Or maybe I am the exception that proves the rule?
Isocrates wrote:
Your criticism of CR as self-defeating only works on one reading of that definition. On another reading, CR allows each culture to judge every other culture, but realizes that that judgment carries little weight with the cultures so judged. As liberalrob notes, Bin Laden says he's righteous and we're corrupt. Hitler et al felt the same way.
People like isocrates (and Bin Laden, in the reverse sense) are not interested in the petty feelings of the "cultures so judged." They proceed from the assumption that not only CAN cultures be objectively judged Good or Evil, but that THEIR culture is the one that is objectively Good. And not only is that so, they see it as their duty to ensure that Good triumphs over Evil everywhere, by any means necessary in the shortest possible time, because it is an offense that Evil exists where there might instead be Good.
It is the very definition of radical:
"3 d:advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/radical
And if you object to their advocacy of endless crusades and wars to extirpate Evil (defined as the absence of Good, not simply the presence of actual Evil), why then you are on the side of Bin Laden and Hitler and Ahmadinejad.
liberalrob
I liked your last notion but only in the light of bioethics.
I do believe that there is universal ethics in ecology. We can come up with universal laws that - if breached mean more suffering than less - all over the world.
Eg all humans and animals can suffer pain.
Restricting their evolutionary needs is in nobody's best interest - not even in the slave master's interest.
Just as white males have benefited from liberating black girls - so would we benefit from liberating animals.
One example - locking up animals so that they cannot move - is not only bad for them. It crosses natural laws of sustainability. IT slowly destroys the fundamental for survival for the children of those who do these acts. It introduces diseases like mad cow and bird flu. It pollutes our water. Drugs and hormones are eaten by our children and make them resident to real medicine. etc etc.
If the natural laws are crossed - everybody loses (albeit in the short run there are those who suffer more, animals, and those who suffer less, human consumers).
Needless to say - that we know of only approximations of these bioethics laws - but we know them almost as well as the approximations of gravity and aero dynamics. It makes sense to follow them - as it makes sense to build airplanes based on nature laws and not wishful or religious thinking?
Based on bioethics - every nation, culture, society and every individual can be judged and compared.
But when we leave natural laws behind and use cultural systems for our value judgment instead - the whole thing can only be relative.
Today - we have reached a crossroad. We realize that cultural values have overtaken, mistakenly, natural values. If we can discover nature again or not will decide if we enter golden ages or if we will live and smell like garbage cans?
As E O Wilson claims - if we cannot even establish a connection with our closet family of kin - animals - how should we reach natural intuition? We have to start with ourselves - and therefore with the animals we enslave. The rest will follow..
As Einstein, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Schweitzer etc claim - how we treat animals is at the root of all human problems and opportunities!
liberalrob, many conservatives do criticize the religious right. Others agree with them. Regardless, they are not currently engaged in a process of using violence to achieve a theocracy. When they start advocating and/or practicing suicide bombings, murder of "heretics" and sinners, using police power to enforce religious rules, etc... then I'll consider them on the same level as the current extremist muslims.
Moderate Muslims do make some effort to disavow the extremists, but Islam does seem to have a much bigger problem with dangerous extremists than any other religion does right now.
In addition, most of the people that I hear talking about the war on terror or the problem of Islamists/extremists/whatever do not advocate a war on all of Islam or all Muslims. They advocate a war on the extremists. I have seen criticisms of moderate Islam for failing to work hard enough to marginalize the extremists and I think that's a reasonable, debatable criticism.
I don't have a problem with making war to stop evil acts, if necessary. I understand that a truly radical Muslim believes that he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, I disagree with him and feel very strongly that he is wrong. I can't PROVE it, but I believe it. The difference is that I'll leave him alone unless he threatens me. He wants to forcibly convert me to Islam or kill me. I think that's a very important difference.
EI