Racism And Discrimination Are Good Things.

[CSolarstorm]

You guys are aware that Western Law came from Christianity, right?

So, by your logic Sharia Law is acceptable because it is a legal system?
(Not that I support SL, but that's your logic)

If laws were introduced forcing people who were of different ethinicty to be killed or enslaved, then I suppose you two would obey it?

We don't really need to answer that, it's rather obvious that nobody here would follow a law based on ethnic cleansing. We're not depending on the law, per se, we are saying that the law is perfect as is. That's what I see most of us posting, at least. I don't see anyone talking about whether Sharia Law is acceptable or not, just that people need to obey Western laws that say you can't murder, rape, etc. In other words, when Sharia oversteps Western law, that's when things become a problem.

 

[ZarraWolf]

[sarcasm]Yes, because everything we do is perfect. Our religion is perfect, our law is perfect and our political system is perfect. And everything else needs to be eliminated as soon as possible. [/sarcasm]

I follow the laws of my country. But I strongly disagree with some of them. And I believe that the punishments given for the crimes are inappropriate.
But the way to protest these kind of things is not just breaking the law, it's finding a loophole, or changing the law.

Tim the turtle, I see absolutely no rational basis for moral rules.

I can think of plenty of rational reasons why racism, rape and murder are right. I can think of only one reason why it is wrong. I'm not saying that that makes it right per se, life is not that black and white, it's just that I think it's not so rational and set in stone as you want it to be.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Look, I don't care about how good our laws supposedly are to others. I only care about the very basic human rights of equality (even if on the outside only, noone is 100% free from any -ism) and the Five Fundamental Freedoms of
- Speech
- Assembly
- Association
- Religion
- Movement.

As well as the Pursuit of Happiness. Among a few other things of course.

All laws be they Sharia, Western, Chinese, Brazilian, Roman, Guptan, Soviet, Pokemon, Hyrulian and Atlantean are all equal in their tendency to get pointless, weak, foolish and Nanny Nazi in their moralism and purpose.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Tim the turtle, I see absolutely no rational basis for moral rules.

I can think of plenty of rational reasons why racism, rape and murder are right. I can think of only one reason why it is wrong. I'm not saying that that makes it right per se, life is not that black and white, it's just that I think it's not so rational and set in stone as you want it to be.

I never, at any point, said that life was black and white. But there are moral theories based on rational argument, and they provide justification for our beliefs. If we did not have justification then we would have no right to believe what we do believe, indeed, we probably would not believe what we do! We need justification for our beliefs, and we cannot get it by simply saying that all beliefs are equal, that is an ethical cop-out. If we allow that all beliefs are equal then we have no right to complain when we are stabbed or raped or murdered. And you're correct, the world is not as rational as I would like, but that does not mean we shouldn't try to make it rational.

 

[ZarraWolf]

Please explain why rape is wrong. And base your answer completely on rational facts instead of fear and religious dogma.

I think many people want to believe in moral code because it protects them. In nature rape, murder, violence and death are part of everyday life. In our western society we have decided that nature is wrong. And that we want to protect the people who are to weak to protect themselves.

I can't blame other people for following their nature. Especially if it is allowed in their country.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Please explain why rape is wrong. And base your answer completely on rational facts instead of fear and religious dogma.

Would you like the deontological explanation, the utilitarian one or the virtue ethics one. I can provide either one.

I think many people want to believe in moral code because it protects them. In nature rape, murder, violence and death are part of everyday life. In our western society we have decided that nature is wrong. And that we want to protect the people who are to weak to protect themselves.

Yes, you're correct in that such things are not considered wrong in nature, however humans do have a moral code, a way of living that we deem to be correct. Now it stands to reason that there may be several ways of living that are different yet still correct, which is what produces cultural diversity, and this is fine. However it also stands to reason that if there is a correct way of living our lives then there is also an incorrect way of living our lives, and moral theories are what we use to try and find out which things are correct and which are incorrect. It is also prudent to mention that human society and morality is, for the most part, based on natural onclinations. Murder of ones own species within a society is generally seen as taboo in animal at societies as well as in human ones.

I can't blame other people for following their nature. Especially if it is allowed in their country.

Then you have no right to complain... about anything that anyone does to you... ever.

 

[GhostAnime]

People have to remember that it is natural for humans to stereotype, be intolerant of things that are different, etc and so forth. Even if you state that you love diversity and aren't racist, don't tell me you'd not be scared if you were suddenly thrown in an American desert surrounded by men in turbans who looked like Osama Bin Laden or in a hood full of Mexicans and Blacks.

It's just the way of life to be judgmental. We have to accept it.

 

[Venia Silente]

OK, maybe I'm missing something obvious or simply I can't comprehend Monroian mentality, but... why are you guys giving law precedence and the ability to determine whether following a certain moral system is right?

True, law is the most easily applicable common ground we have to decide those matters, but in cultural scale only. Law is location-based, sovereignty-based, and most importantly, power-based. The ones who make the laws are not the one who are right (or have any reason, for that matter); only the ones who have won the most recent war. Go to anywhere else (which, even for the US, may simply mean a different state) where the most recently won war was another, and the laws will be different, and they may, or will, condemn what you had as correct in your place while at the same time allowing or even promoting a behaviour you had though of as "abhorrent"-- but it's still OK with their culture as yours was OK with your culture.

You say, "when Sharia oversteps Western law, that's when things become a problem". What happens when "Western oversteps Sharia law"? What happens when you are there and the law expects you to (let's hope not, but I just want to show the fallacy) murder and rape? You do because "the law is right, is perfect"?

Law matter aside, what surprises me the most is this:

But we're not just talking about different here, we're talking about cultures that we view as morally abhorent. If we wish to remain consistent in our moral approach and beliefs then we must take steps to try and infuence other cultures into being more in line with our way of thinking.

That reads absolutely Monroian to me. It's a veiled "if they don't do things the way WE like, let's bomb them, economically disrupt them, and eventually replace their culture with ours".
And so, I guess, we must accept that those other cultures do the same with us (try to imprint their culture unto us). Not doing so would violate their human rights!

 

[CSolarstorm]

OK, maybe I'm missing something obvious or simply I can't comprehend Monroian mentality, but... why are you guys giving law precedence and the ability to determine whether following a certain moral system is right?

It just seems like the easiest judge, to me. I assume most western law establishments will condemn rape, murder, and abuse which falls in line with the way I think.

True, law is the most easily applicable common ground we have to decide those matters, but in cultural scale only. Law is location-based, sovereignty-based, and most importantly, power-based. The ones who make the laws are not the one who are right (or have any reason, for that matter); only the ones who have won the most recent war. Go to anywhere else (which, even for the US, may simply mean a different state) where the most recently won war was another, and the laws will be different, and they may, or will, condemn what you had as correct in your place while at the same time allowing or even promoting a behaviour you had though of as "abhorrent"-- but it's still OK with their culture as yours was OK with your culture.

True.

You say, "when Sharia oversteps Western law, that's when things become a problem". What happens when "Western oversteps Sharia law"? What happens when you are there and the law expects you to (let's hope not, but I just want to show the fallacy) murder and rape? You do because "the law is right, is perfect"?

No, we don't. At least, I don't. I don't think just any law is right or perfect. I simply trust Western law will condemn rape, abuse, and murder. I wouldn't follow a law based on ethnic cleansing - I have a brain that differentiates. Just because you can take a claim out of context and show that it's a fallacy out of context, doesn't mean I was saying something fallacious when in context.

Law matter aside, what surprises me the most is this:

That reads absolutely Monroian to me. It's a veiled "if they don't do things the way WE like, let's bomb them, economically disrupt them, and eventually replace their culture with ours".
And so, I guess, we must accept that those other cultures do the same with us (try to imprint their culture unto us). Not doing so would violate their human rights!

That's absolutely right - as long as we continue to condemn and encroach upon their way of doing things, we must expect them to do the same in return.

So what exactly is your point?

 

[Tim the turtle]

It's a veiled "if they don't do things the way WE like, let's bomb them, economically disrupt them, and eventually replace their culture with ours".

Except that I also clearly stated...

There is no greater hypocrisy than abandoning ones morals in order to force morality on another.

Seeing as how most people would agree that in the vast majority of cases actions like military and economic force are morally wrong, then it becomes far more a case of attempting influence through perfectly peaceful means.

 

[ZarraWolf]

Would you like the deontological explanation, the utilitarian one or the virtue ethics one. I can provide either one.

Yes, you're correct in that such things are not considered wrong in nature, however humans do have a moral code, a way of living that we deem to be correct. Now it stands to reason that there may be several ways of living that are different yet still correct, which is what produces cultural diversity, and this is fine. However it also stands to reason that if there is a correct way of living our lives then there is also an incorrect way of living our lives, and moral theories are what we use to try and find out which things are correct and which are incorrect. It is also prudent to mention that human society and morality is, for the most part, based on natural onclinations. Murder of ones own species within a society is generally seen as taboo in animal at societies as well as in human ones.

Then you have no right to complain... about anything that anyone does to you... ever.

The utilitarian one please.

And I was not planning on complaining about anything. I'd rather take action to prevent and change the things that bother me.

 

[Tim the turtle]

The act utilitarian viewpoint would (incredibly roughly) posit that an action is wrong when it produces a greater amount of suffering than it does happiness. In the case of rape then, we might say that it would cause a greater amount of suffering than it does pleasure. Now you might say that surely gang-rape would be morally acceptable because, as the old 'joke' says, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang-rape. This, however, is not an effective counter argument as utilitarianism looks at the total amount of suffering over a period of time. Thus whilst the rapists would gain some pleasure for their actions, it will be overpowered by the suffering placed upon the victim. In this case gang-rape is also wrong.

Now, of course, with a moral theory such as this you have to accept that rape could indeed be morally correct in some circumstances, however such a circumstance would need to involve no suffering from the victim. Not only is this an almost complete impossibility, but on the off chance that it does happen, we need to ask, is it wrong? The act utilitarianist would say no, and the victim might even agree with this if she derived no suffering from it at all. Even then, the theory of rule utilitarianism has an answer if that does not suffice, which is to say that an action is good or bad if it produces more pleasure or suffering in the majority of cases. So rape is nearly always bad, therefore rape is always bad according to rule utilitarianism.

Note: I'm sorry, I would have gone into more detail and provided some references but I'm currently writing an essay on Mill's Political Philosophy and seeing as how Mill was also the man who made Utilitarianism famous (though Bentham and Pascal are credited with inventing it) I really don't feel like reading and writing anything more usbstantial about Mill XD

And I was not planning on complaining about anything. I'd rather take action to prevent and change the things that bother me.

But if you claim that everyone's moral beliefs are equal to everyone elses then you have little right to be bothered either.

 

[Venia Silente]

No, we don't. At least, I don't. I don't think just any law is right or perfect. I simply trust Western law will condemn rape, abuse, and murder. I wouldn't follow a law based on ethnic cleansing - I have a brain that differentiates. Just because you can take a claim out of context and show that it's a fallacy out of context, doesn't mean I was saying something fallacious when in context.

Yes, you were not, that's true; the issue persists, however, in that you do that out of custom and therefore have to accept that others do that too. The indication here is "I trust all western laws to allow me to behave in a manner accepted by my kin, and so I expect other kins to behave like this too". The law has been born because of that (set of) manner(s). Turn that half a world around, and you have people for whom their customs and laws tell them that "I trust <insert name of country> laws to allow me to behave in an manner accepted by my kin, and thus I expect those people who are judging me overseas to behave like this too".
If we happen to dislike that manner of theirs (for example: lynching women) and judge or attack them on the grounds that they don't respect a standard that we have set (for example, we refuse to withdraw our military troops from their homes unless they change their laws) that we believe they should be forced to accept, we are committing an act as morally wrong (to ourselves) as what they do to their own people (to ourselves). Big difference: it is us who end getting our hands dirty.

So what exactly is your point?

That in searching for the reason of that willingness to hide moral judgment behind the law, I may have missed an important element, which I did: Tim the turtle's quote:

Except that I also clearly stated...

Quote:There is no greater hypocrisy than abandoning ones morals in order to force morality on another.

Seeing as how most people would agree that in the vast majority of cases actions like military and economic force are morally wrong, then it becomes far more a case of attempting influence through perfectly peaceful means.

It sums up the problem nicely: it simply depends on what "perfectly peaceful means" means. History has shown us before, what the oppressor believes to be rightful application of force in the prosecution of "their" justice, may actually the end of life for those oppressed. That includes "indoctrinating" aboriginal cultures "into reason" because they worship lizard birds instead of a random man in a cross, or "kindly suggesting" a country to forsake nuclear weapons when they are left with almost no means to defend themselves from all of the oppressor's other weapons. All of these "lawful" approaches. It is very easy to get yourself off the "morally wrong" label when the people at the other side are either dying silently, or being replaced with your ethnicity and you've built a system that promotes this behaviour... it is no longer an issue of morality, but of the winning side defining what is moral and what is not. There's a compelling reason for all those "Afghanistan/Irak as the next McDonalds parking slot" jokes, and it's not that they are supposed to be funny.


One thing that I have not seen discussed in this thread, if it was the original intention given the question, is that in the end, there are ethical reasons why discrimination is not only right but also wanted. Or would we "as people" like a handicapped person running machinery upon which hangs the welfare, like the water supply, of an entire city? Wouldn't that essentially saying that discrimination is a good thing? Or we are supposed to expect handicaped people to willingly remove themselves from such situations?

 

[Tim the turtle]

You are, of course, correct that it is incredibly difficult to define perfectly peaceful, or even, moral. (I should have said moral over peaceful in reality anyway) However simply because it is difficult does not mean that it cannot be done, nor that it should not be attempted. There are moral rules that one should follow, and those who do not follow them are acting immorally. If the west views itself as a moral set of nations, which it does, then it is hypocrisy to allow immoral acts to go on and not attempt to change that. Of course other nations have different moral standards, and these may indeed be correct above ours, but such must be demonstrated through rational and reasoned debate. Ideas such as "rape is wrong" have been demonstrated to be correct through such forums. It is not simply a matter of "culture" or "preference", it is a widely accepted moral standard.

 

[Antiyonder]

Now, of course, with a moral theory such as this you have to accept that rape could indeed be morally correct in some circumstances, however such a circumstance would need to involve no suffering from the victim. Not only is this an almost complete impossibility, but on the off chance that it does happen, we need to ask, is it wrong? The act utilitarianist would say no, and the victim might even agree with this if she derived no suffering from it at all. Even then, the theory of rule utilitarianism has an answer if that does not suffice, which is to say that an action is good or bad if it produces more pleasure or suffering in the majority of cases. So rape is nearly always bad, therefore rape is always bad according to rule utilitarianism.

I'd say it's wrong as the victim is forced into something he/she doesn't want to do, and at the time it happen, leaves a feeling of helplessness to some.

And even if there are no immediate after effects, doesn't rape leave psychological scars?

 

[Tim the turtle]

I'd say it's wrong as the victim is forced into something he/she doesn't want to do, and at the time it happen, leaves a feeling of helplessness to some.

As would I, but I'm not an act utilitarian, also you should notice that it was only ever an hypothetical, I find it just as absurd as you that anyone could enjoy being raped.

And even if there are no immediate after effects, doesn't rape leave psychological scars?

Yeah, that's why I said it would be so stupidly rare an occurence that the victim feels no pleasure that it likely would never happen. You'll notice that I acmitted to the fact of psychological scarring in my description when I mentioned that Utilitarianism takes into account all pleasure and suffering over an extended period. But yes indeed, if such things were present then it would not be right in any way.

 

[The_Boss_Giygas]

Law of Nature: Survive
Kill to eat & to defend

Cause as little trouble as possible for your fellow organisms otherwise you will run into issues with them and you might die thus ignoring the rule of “survival”

Mate/have sex, reproduce & continue survival of your species.
There is no sexual Rape in Nature as most animals need the cooperation of both male & female in order to reproduce thus not rape. If an animal tries to “rape” it’s partner it’s gonna get vicious and thus either the male dies or the female dies and there is no reproduction and I admit it happens sometimes which then breaks the rule of survival.

Those are the laws animals follow, the laws of nature, many humans do not follow these, we kill not for food or survival, but for ignorant egotism, we can live very well without killing ourselves, but many choose not to simply because of their egos. We do have sex for reproduction & pleasure as well, and we do rape though not for survival. If the rape “victim” enjoys it, allows it, does not resist it, it’s simply not rape. They may feel physical pleasure of their body, but in no way does it mean they enjoyed it, I could eat a tasty meal while having guns pointed at me, I’d enjoy the flavor, but in no way would I enjoy the situation nor be happy.

We endanger our own lives by troubling others, we trouble others either because they get in the way of our ego which we usually claim are our “morals” “religion” “desires”, or because they somehow troubled us in the first place.

The way of life is to thrive & survive how do we do it? Feel good, feel proud, enjoy things, be happy, little suffering. We all have different ways of being happy, yes some people believe killing others, destroying things, and having absolute power (if that’s even possible) will make them happy, but you will be punished for your actions, You will not thrive & you certainly will not survive very long.

What religion is the right one? Which ever you feel will help you survive & thrive better, if you want to force aka rape some one of their religion or into your religion and your religion allows you to do it, then your religion will not allow you to thrive or survive well and may not last long. If you want to prove that your religion is the best than you’re not doing it for your religion your doing it for your own ego. The word of God has changed throughout time and has been lost so no one knows for sure, but I’m sure God & nature are one & the same so laws of nature are a way to get an idea which is survival.

Violence? Violence is in nature & is necessary though the reasons for violence differ, sometimes violence can help you survive, sometimes it cannot.

Capitalism Communism etc. No body follows those fully and some twist the meaning as no ism can be followed 100% due to loopholes or contradictions.

The Law: Every country has their laws they place those laws based on what they feel is what will make their country/society functional. Some laws may be immoral or wrong or against your own morals/beliefs. Well there’s nothing you can do about it except try to change it, follow it, or break it. Or move to another place where the laws better fit your life. Laws must be made with balance, if not it will cause the country/society suffering no thriving and eventually no survival.

 

[Dante Falls]

Morals are subjective, not absolute.

Those with greater power, usually granted by a greater number of people, will usually be the ones to dictate what is morally right and morally wrong.

People used to think slavery, pederasty and ethnic cleansing was right. Now we don't.

In centuries to come, the majority may dictate that rape, murder and paedophilia is morally right and should be encouraged, for whatever reason that can be supported as well as any reason we believe in Freedom of Speech or the like.

The only reason we believe [X] to be right, and [Y] to be wrong is because society has brought us up this way, coupled with a bit of Nature wanting us to be sociable animals on occasion.

Murdering an enemy in cold blood could be easily justified as removing a threat to yourself, perhaps he has resources you desire, or perhaps he was a sexual rival. From a egocentric viewpoint, killing him was a good thing. Now you can take his land, take his women and progenate off-spring with your genes.


If the majority want to accept other culture's into our own, then it's going to happen. If the majority decide to remain isolated, then it's going to happen. If the majority want to eradicate all foreigners, then it's going to happen.

 

[Bobblefighter]

Mate/have sex, reproduce & continue survival of your species.
There is no sexual Rape in Nature as most animals need the cooperation of both male & female in order to reproduce thus not rape. If an animal tries to “rape” it’s partner it’s gonna get vicious and thus either the male dies or the female dies and there is no reproduction and I admit it happens sometimes which then breaks the rule of survival.

Actually, alot of animals are actually asexual, either though binary fission, budding or parthenogenesis. Sexual reproduction is rather uncommon in the animal world, and males are typically regarded as the 'useless' sex, since they cannot produce children. Also, (mostly in mammals) males who do participate in sexual reproduction usually do so when the female is ovulating, which they can detect through pheromones. The female then decides who is the strongest mate, mostly though visual cues and scent. Not many deaths occur from this.

 

[Charmbracelet]

That got your attention.

In the news cycle, some words keep coming up. Multiculturalism, Diversity, Tolerance. These things are nice and all, but I have wondered just how far it should go.

To be more precise, should we Westerners tolerate other cultures/religions/ideologies if they uphold beliefs that are aginst ours? For example, should we welcome and tolerate muslims who believe that men are allowed to have sex with women whenever they want, even if the woman dosn't want to?

I ask this as people in the Middle-East, Africa and Asia frequnetly treat women/non-[dominant religon/ethnicity] and other minorites rather poorly yet they condemn 'Interfering Western Imperialists' when we condemn the repressive actions of 'Diverse Enlightened Societies'.

What do you guys think of Cultural Diversity?

Muslims don't believe that though....in fact, I have Muslim friends who have girlfriends or are married and they treat their woman like gold, in fact even better than most "Westerners" I know.

People should tolerate and accept all cultures which aren't harmful, this includes the different religions, different sexualities etc. When it comes down to it we're all human, and unless someone isn't forcing their beliefs on you, then its fine.