Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whilst I take some of your point - fostered on a defeated enemy. Your 'exactly' is complete bollocks. Pre-fisrt World War Germany had reasonable enfranchisement, regular elections, one of the world's first stabs at a welfare state (looked at with envy by Lloyd George), well established unions, independent press, a modern economy, independent globally respected academic institutions, etc etc


But we're off topic.


I'm pretty much in agreement with DC on this.

I would certainly encourage all countries to be secular and for relogion to be a personal thing.

Within a secular society we, judging by reactions to the atheist (lizard) brigade on here, should tiptoe around the personal sensibilities of the religious.


We (lizard kind) tend to say to Christians 'you reserve the right to be a bit medieval' and to Muslims 'you reserve the right to be a bit errrr medieval'. Not sure how one is tiptoeing and the other not. I think this is all misinformation beloved of the daily mail keeping the myths of banned Christmases alive.

Actually not really. The Weimar republic was not foisted on a defeated enemy, it was created politically within a militarily defeated state that didn't necessarily consider itself so, that thought its position due to an international conspiracy where it was the victim (actually partially true in both cases) and that was desperately trying to step back from the brink of revolutions and total civil war, where various warlords and political experiments were happening and generally failing and militias and criminal gangs filled the power vaccuum and formed the nucleus of future power centres, but apart from that they were different I guess.

As for secular rationalism, I don't buy that either. Despite explicit claims to atheism, I think all three were much more deeply rooted in the traditions and symbolism of religious eschatology than with anything to do with rationalism.

But apart from the detail I too stand in yours and DC's corner.

Perhaps I am guilty of 'intellectual masturbation' magpie but only in the sense that I'm trying to make the point that there is a difference between something being 'incorrect' and being 'wrong' in an absolute sense. There is also the mistake of saying something is 'wrong' in the sense of "I don't agree with it".


You say, magpie, that it's patronising to refer to the cultural background by way of understanding/justifying/condoning what we perceive to be unacceptable - but then you go on to extol our 'superior' western liberal democratic model thereby overriding the customs of millions of 'less fortunate' people.


There are people who slit their bottom lip and insert a wooden plate in some custom/ritual that they deem desirable. People who elongate their necks with rings in the name of beauty. People who, less commonly now, bind their feet. All these things may seem strange to us, primitive even, if that's not too supercilious a thing to say, but in what sense are they 'wrong'?


Female circumcision is 'wrong' because we regard it as a barbaric practice to a defenceless child that has no place in a modern world. Unfortunately, many of the adherents of the practice do not live in our cosy modern world.

How about this as a decent starting point for non-negotiable principles:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

All I know, is that it is my intuition (i.e. a type of moral guidance) and not my brain (i.e. logic) which determines what is right or wrong.


A story:

A few years ago, in Vietnam, I witnessed a man persistently beat his little girl (about 5/6 years old). I did not use rational thought to determine whether this man was entitled to act as he did. Was he perhaps instilling some discipline into his child, for example? Or, was his conduct deemed acceptable behaviour in his country? Or had this small girl perhaps herself committed some worse atrocity to "deserve" such treatment even? The man was on his own property (a boat) and the mother simply watched as her child was being systematically beaten, kicked, and punched etc.


So there I was in this man's country. He was on his own property beating his own child. As far as I understand the position, it is common practice within Vietnamese culture to beat children in pursuance of educating them. Many, though certainly not all, believe, that by so beating, their children will become good people. Here, in the UK we cannot beat children in this way.


My brain (i.e. logic) signalled to me that, under the doctrine of cultural relativism, this man's actions (which stemmed from a moral system which said that it was OK - nay, his duty - to beat his child), had to be respected by me as his belief was ? albeit very different from mine - equally valid and certainly no less right.


So, what did I do? Well, all rational thought and logic was immediately jettisoned. Instinct compelled me to leap onto this man's boat. I then pulled the child away from him and proceeded to give him the "best" beating my hobbit-like frame could. I did this for a few minutes, not to mention, swear, hiss and spit at him while a group of British tourists and his wife merely looked on.


Now, before any of you start sending me "hate PMs", may I just say that I am not proud of my behaviour ? though having said that, somewhat perversely, I would probably do the same again if faced with a similar situation.


So the question here is: is the system in which I live better than that Vietnamese man's? If yes, then morality comes into play which means that I was correct to use my moral guidance and step in. If no, because according to the theory on cultural relativism morality is subjective depending on a person's culture and neither his nor my system are better than one another's, then my actions were grossly inappropriate and I am nothing more than an arrogant Westerner telling the Vietnamese "how to get their house in order" (to quote the eloquent DC).


I followed my morals and chose to intervene but, by doing so, dispensed with the rules of cultural relativism that no one moral system is best. HOW can this concept of cultural relativism prevail over humankind's integral sense of morality? I honestly don't think that it can! And my experience is evidence of this. I just could not sit back and do nothing - any more than some of you could stand by and watch the forcible circumcision of females. The sight of that little girl being beaten was totally shocking and abhorrent to me. In essence, my moral guidance told me ? f-uck this logic, it is WRONG.


So, if cultural relativism is to be accepted as a concept, then (it is my humble opinion) that logic prevails and morality must, as a consequence, be abandoned. If morality is to prevail, then it is cultural relativism (and therefore logic) which has to be thrown out of the window along with many of the other "...isms".






Keep editing because pea brain has gone into semi-meltdown mode and I can't even understand my own post!:-S

The problem I have trying to follow this thread is exactly who Us and Them actually are.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written by a UN commission made up of representatives from Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, Uruguay and Yugoslavia back in 1948.


Criticizing people who fail to live up to such universal standards is not western arrogance, but assuming the west is the only place they are valued is.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck up

> on one or two points above?



Don't you dare - I did state at the outset that this topic was too complex for my brain.;-)


It's an excellent thread though DC.

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck

> up

> > on one or two points above?


silverfox - I agree with Ladymuck. Difficult situation but well done for doing what you did. I lived in Asia for a number of years, its hard to turn your back to some things (not saying the West is perfect either). I certainly don't consider myself 'superior' in any way for having lived in the UK/Western society. I do find it exceptionally difficult to witness cruelty in any form, especially towards children and animals.


> Don't you dare - I did state at the outset that

> this topic was too complex for my brain.;-)


Ladymuck, that is not true - your views are as valid as the next persons. Its clearly not too complex for you!


> It's an excellent thread though DC.


Agreed - very thought-provoking.

By deduction...if you believe in cultural realtivism then you are culturally entitled to express your western liberal view point with no need for discussion or guilt (which I think was Magpie's point); if you don't, then clearly on Female Circumsicion you are right. Ergo The problem is Cultural relativism?



Stella clears the mind I find...at the moment ;-)


Not good for spelling though

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for all of the thoughts. I have a letter from searches which outlines the scope of work but doesn't mention any work guarantee as far as I can see. I agree that next step is to check directly with the major works team. Tim .
    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 [email protected] Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...