Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother |
| From | Raven |
| Date | 2002-05-21 00:03 (2002-05-21 00:03) |
| Message-ID | <lqeG8.1186$gr1.5192@news.get2net.dk> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Troels Forchhammer |
| Followups | T.T. Arvind (26m) > Raven |
"Troels Forchhammer" <Troels@ThisIsFake.dk>skrev i en meddelelse news:3CE9115D.31140A6D@ThisIsFake.dk...
Troels ForchhammerTo me, the ethical principle "do not view other people as tools" is an absolute ethical principle. From this principle springs the principle of freedom: "do not dominate others for the sake of your own gratification". A religious group trying to impose their faith upon others would violate that principle. This includes the notion of "theocracy", that my life should be guided by laws based on unprovable tenets that I do not share. Those Islamists and (much fewer, it seems) Christians who would build a society with laws that bid me to observe Islamic (or Christian) rituals and live by Sharia law or similar are repugnant to me. I regard them as enemies. Only their conversion to the belief that religious belief and practice are a private concern would reconcile such people and me, and I'm not ashamed of that. The values that led to the Fadime Sahindal murder in Sweden also clash with the "people are not tools" principle: Ms. Sahindal was murdered by her own father because he was determined that she live her life according to his greater honour, or die to restore it. I would not impose my ethical principles upon, say, old Mr. Sahindal, with force and against his will. But he imposed *his* ethical principles upon Fadime Sahindal against her will, and that was utterly wrong. Had it been in society's power to stop that excercise of his ethical principles, society should have done so. As it is, it is the Swedish society's duty to punish his transgression, as happily happens. It is true that we should be tolerant enough of other people's beliefs and moralities that we refrain from imposing ours upon them. But we should not be so tolerant that we permit others to impose *theirs* upon still others. Thus, to screeching Hell with the so-called Asian values that some authoritarian leaders in southern Asia have used to argue that their populations should not have democracy "imposed on them" from the West. "The Asian peoples prefer authoritarian governments - it's part of our culture, so take your White Man's Burden someplace else." And if it is true that the social authorities in these parts have let pass wife-battering among immigrants as "part of their culture, which we must not oppress", then to screeching Hell with that also. Denying another his "right" to oppress is not oppression.
Basically I agree with you that moral relativism is _not_ truly sustainable as an ethical principle - my big problem arise when I have to argue why _my_ ethical principles should be the invariant foundation for a universal set of ethics.
Zagh.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
