All Terrorists are Religious!!!

"...Islam, which is currently the far more violent of the religions."
Congratulations, that's the most asinine statement I've read this year, truely worthy of president jr.

FYI, it was the "christian" U.S.A., along with a coalition of "christian" jackels, that invaded an Islamic nation, and has spent over 2,100 of its own people's lives to kill over 40,000 Muslims.
Maybe you missed it. It was in the news.
And still is.

 

Slutter


As I understand it the peasants position in feudal Japan was similar to that of peasants in feudal Europe (even better as they could actual own land). The killing of a peasant was more likely to be about apologising to the peasant’s lord and master than to the peasant’s family. The relationship was closer to that of slave and master, were the killing of a slave was about the destruction of property or loss of income.

But then it comes down to what you gage these other cultures against? If I had to decide between being a peasant in feudal Japan or Europe or being a slave in America with each other it would be a hard call. But in general terms a Japanese peasant could own land and usually had a village democracy unlike the other two so maybe I’d go for that. But if it was a chose between them or, let us say, being born in modern day Iran, then I wouldn’t hesitate in saying Iran. But if it were a choice of all of them and modern day Britain then I’d jump for Britain.

You then have to say at what social strata you are talking about? Life might not have been very good for a feudal peasant, serf or slave but it was much better for the lords and masters. But you seem to be implying that it is the rights of all that are important, yet that is a modern concept even in modern democracies. Remember that many black people in the US still did not have the de facto rights they were meant to have until the 1960’s (civil rights act of 1964).

The trouble with judging a ‘culture’ is what are you judging it against and what are the choices. If you compare the cultures of a particular period with others of the same time your outcome will be different if you extend the perimeters to include other time periods. In the same way as if you compare what is or has happened in the real world with what could be in a theoretical model. I mean it stands to reason that if you think up your own personal utopia then all cultures will come up short if compared to it.

 

"You do realize that a stance of cultural relativism, in which you cannot judge another culture, inhibits you from praising it as well."

Are you accusing me of this? If you are, I think you should re-read my post.

I actually ‘judge’ between different societies by weighing up the situations in each. For example I choose to be a peasant in feudal Japan over being a serf in feudal Europe or a slave in pre civil war America, but prefer to be born in modern Iran over all those and modern Britain over that.

What I’m trying to point out is that the choices that are given can dictate the outcome and the fallacy of some conclusions drawn from it.

For example some people claim that since 2005 CE Christian America is a better place to live that Islamic Iran, it means that Christian culture is morally superior to Islamic culture.

Yet if given the choice between living in 960 CE Christian Paris or Islamic Cordoba I’d choose Islamic Cordoba. So does that make Islamic culture superior to Christian culture?

**

I really don’t understand why getting things into context and perspective means that people cannot blame or praise another society or culture.

For example I can admire the architecture and engineering skills of the classical Romans yet deplore their seeming love of brutal gladiatorial shows.

I can admire the art of feudal Japan yet be disturbed by the casual violence. Just as while being a collector and fan of modern Japanese manga and anime I’m deplored by the Japanese people ‘s inability to face up to what happened in WWII.

In the same way I love American films, authors and people but am appalled at their political system (as it works at the moment), the widespread ignorance and hate many of the actions of its governments. I might thing the US constitution a fine document for its time but also think another should be written for the 21st century.

It is an approach that is flexible and makes judgements on merits based on an appreciation of the context.

**

As I understand it I think your approach rather simplistic and ridged if not dogmatic. You judge a society on seemingly on one criteria, the rights of the people.

So compare the rights of people in feudal Japan with modern America and I think most people would opt for the present day US. But as I’ve shown limit the choice to other societies and cultures and someone just might opt for feudal Japan.

At the same time what happens once a society or culture has been judged morally inferior does that not make everything of that society or culture inferior. If feudal Japan is morally inferior to modern America does that not mean that all the art of feudal Japan is also inferior, because it is the product of a lesser, morally corrupt culture? And if a society or culture is judged morally superior couldn’t its bad traits be ignored because they are still part of the ‘superior culture’?

In the blame and praise stakes it seems your method is the one wanting.

**

I don’t know if what I’m arguing for is ‘cultural relativism’ but if it is it seems a much more rational flexible, and forward thing approach that your idea of ‘cultural judgement’.

 

Slutter

LOL

I have a few teacher friends who tells me that when students can’t think of anything to say themselves they resort to name dropping famous people and theories in the hope the teacher will see they know something.

Kant
Locke
Categorical Imperative
rights theories
egoism
utilitarianism
devine command theory

Pretty good list.

**

Come on man, remember give and take, you promised a couple of posts ago that you would address my questions and ideas and explain your own. But here I am busting a gut and all I get is a shopping list.

**

But ok if it will better help you to understand where I’m coming from I’ll try to explain, and I’ll try to keep the name dropping to a minimum.

First of all I think that some people have too much of an absolutist definitions of right and wrong, if it is wrong it is always the same degree of wrong and the same for what they judge to be right. My view is that while an idea can be right or wrong the context may change the emphasis and therefore the degree to which it is right or wrong.

Take a Christian (since the tread is about religion) from the 21st century and from a modern educated society. If he believes that the world was created by a god in six days and man was made as he is now and all this happened only in the last few thousand years, I would say his views are wrong.

I say this because in balance the fairy tales of the bible doesn’t seem to stand up well to Darwinism and evolutionary theory, which seem to be rational and reasonable and to fit the material evidence.

Now let us take a Christian from 16th century Europe who believes in creationism, is he wrong, well from where I am in the 21st century, yes he is still wrong. But he can have no knowledge of evolutionary theory the intellectual model he has of the world is limited to his time. So in his intellectual context he is not wrong. He is still wrong from my perspective but I cannot bring myself to find his ignorance as wrong as I can the Christian in the 21st century. Also if I was born in the 16th century I would also not know of evolutionary theory and if I got any education at all it would probably be religious and I’d most likely think creationism made perfect sense.

But while I might think the 21st century Christian as intellectually wrong is he morally wrong? Well no, those are his beliefs and although I might think them silly or even dangerous, I don’t think him morally wrong for having them.

However if the Christian is trying to force those views onto people that don’t have them and don’t want them, then I would say the person was morally wrong. But I would also think that any Darwinists that tried to force their views on creationists were also morally wrong.

I believe it right to defend the ideas I see as being right within my intellectual context, so I would defend for example human rights and democracy, but I also have to realise that people at other times and space are going to defend what they see as being right within their intellectual context. Those ideas might not be the right ones from my perspective but seen from theirs I’m unsure.

The Christians of 16th century Europe were willing to fight for their Christian beliefs as much as I would be for my secular ones. So while I might see their ideas as wrong and I might see their violent defence of those ideas as silly and wasteful, I have to understand the context in which they take place.

So time and place can dictate to what degree something is wrong, and only by trying to understand the time and the place can you try and work out what is wrong and how it got better/worse and apply that knowledge to other places and times.

**

Some thing’s humans need to survive others to live well and yet more to make life good. History and the history of political thought has been about those situations and the balance and desirability of differing models of existence. I trawl these and history to see how I can use their models to learn about my world, to see what is necessary, needed or desired.

What I dislike (as I hope has become clear in this thread) is too much adherence to ideologies be they political or religious. When blind obedience to a cause take the place of questioning minds some wrong is usually going to take place.

But always remember that societies and culture don’t remain static they change, sometimes for the better but other times for the worse so we always need to be on guard against those that might make things worse rather than better.


**

Slutter reading philosophy / political thought is not a matter of finding one writer you like and sticking to their teachings, pick, mix, add.