Spinozaad said:
Why do I keep responding to these discussions is beyond me. Oh well, off we go...
...
Which is the western interpretation of ethics, history and society (or in short: western culture) at hand. How exactly is western culture, and all these things spring from the Enlightenment, which is western, better in an absolute sense? And no, 'because it is' or 'because it is our culture' is not a valid response.
What is at work here is the Orientalist's fallacy. Which isn't bad per se, I'm no moralist/relativist myself, but it should be something people should be aware of before they prance off and judge other cultures.
No, it is the UN creed signed by nations of all cultures across the world. Including the UAE if I'm not mistaken. And my own subjective chosen standards for ethical evaluation, every bit the equal to theirs.
Because you think it so, does not make it so.
Nor does it invalidate the point. I can argue it - and what consequences violations of it should have - with equal strength to the Islamic view on wife-beating and what consequences it should not have.
As for the UN legal aspects, I will be "more" in the right is the jurisprudence of it is sound. As for the ethical aspect, I will be right in
my judgement as long as it is logically consistent. As will they in theirs. External observes can then
choose parts of whichever one - if any - they will make their own. And act and condemn upon.
No. Cultural relativism can not go 'only so far'. It is real. Of course, its practical applications are limited if it is pushed to its logical extreme, but that doesn't make it any less 'true'. As for irrelevant sidequestions: How do you know for certain that your morals are not 'planted' by oligarchic hypercapitalists masquerading as egalitarian democrats?
I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. I find the UN declaration of universal human rights to form a limit to what can be permitted.
As for my morals, I choose them for myself, just like any Muslim did. No planting possible there. I did not choose what norms are enforced though, and could thus be normatively "oppressed" in that respect.
So, if I understand you correctly, your reasoning is thus:
'Our subjective view of reality is better than theirs, because it is ours and we say so.'
Everything else you mentioned in support of why our morals are better is inherently biased simply because it has evolved from Enlightenment principles and 19th century Europe/America.
No my reasoning is that "our" culture (whatever that might be; "The west" is hardly a unified entity) is
equal to theirs, and that we thus have every bit as much right to use when judging - and treating - any individual or country as the Islamic nations have to use theirs. As
they violently discriminate gay people based in their culture, so we could with equal "right" (or wrong) violently discriminate
them based in ours; unless of course one takes objectivized laws and human rights standards into account, in which case we can only criticize, condemn, and legally sanction them for violating the objectivized (or what you claim to be western subjective) legal standards of the UN. And condemn, criticize and within the full limits of the law act with hostility towards them for violating "our" norms on the civil rights of women (for starters).
Furthermore, I personally do not believe that anyone deserve more respect or better treatment than they're willing to extend to innocent (by my subjective evaluation) others. Thus I personally judge them by
my chosen standards, again with every bit as much right as they judge those minorities by
their chosen standards; both standards are equal in their subjectivity, so long as they are logically consistent.
It's thus a normative free for all, with no one able to claim absolutist ethical superiority (except perhaps the UN). And I'm of course not going to hold back on arguing my views, in the hope that others will - subjectively - agree with (parts of) them and
choose them for their own in this swamp of subjectivity.
The(se) Abrahamics can of course do the same. Though I doubt they'll have much luck around here.
Of course, and to conclude, since I've lost all desire to continue this desire topic or to respond to those other comments made:
Of course it's sad that such a law is passed. One can judge it like this, as long as it is a) done with consideration and knowledge of the relative reality of cultures and b) not as a self-congratulatory backslap and re-affirmation of our own western superiority.
One would imagine that "we" have grown more humble in regards to the latter, if we take a look at the 20th century.
Indeed, with prudent knowledge of
facts, judgement can be passed, and from our own subjectively chosen norms no less. Understanding merely factors into what tactics to choose to fight the (to almost all non-Muslims, and even some who call themselves Muslim) harmful aspects of their choice. I understand that their culture is different, and for the most part completely and utterly accept it. Whenever aspects of it fall beneath the declaration of human rights I will argue for legal punishment though (detached from all ethical evaluation), and whenever they fall beneath the standards I have chosen to follow I will - using arguments whose validity is resting on my own world view, other non-Islamic world views, or even their own Islamic one should the opportunity arise - criticise and condemn them, in the hope that others will
come to feel the same way about the ethicy of their actions; the point of all that can be classified as an "argument".
Again, we must disagree that at least legal human rights must humble themselves before anything. Or that one should not argue one's chosen views with gusto.
