Amazon produced the first season of a tv series based on a Ray Bradbury short story where the Axis won WW2. It's called 'The Man in the High Castle', and it's set in 1962 in an America divided between Nazis Germany and Imperial Japan. As such, you get exposed to a different set of values promoted by those societies, and the dissidents living in it. It's interesting, if grim.

The biggest value in those societies seems to be promotion of the state apparatus. Individual lives (unless you're high command or Emperor) are to be sacrificed to the state. And of course all those lives not deemed worthwhile are either subjugated or exterminated.

Not if you are respecting each individual for their abilities. To say what you are is to give more absolute value to the better plumber. It is to say the better plumber ought to be respected while the worse on ought not be. Rather than merely pointing out who is better at plumbing and respecting it, your position making a demand that people must be the best, else they are worth(less).

As I said, you a masquerading absolute value as respect for an individual's abilities. You don't hold everyone ought to be themselves. You really think everyone should be equal; everyone master at some skill or craft. Those who are worse, according to your position, must get better or else fail as a person.

Not if you are respecting each individual for their abilities. To say what you are is to give more absolute value to the better plumber. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I do give him a greater absolute value, but only in terms of plumbing. All of his life doesn't resume to plumbing, and therefore I do not claim that in what consists all of his life he is worse off than the best plumber, merely only in that which concerns plumbing.

It is to say the better plumber ought to be respected while the worse on ought not be.

False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only.

I will agree with Augistino in one sense. Societies do determine what the fundamental values are. I happen to grow in a society where equality, justice and tolerance are promoted. But I could have grown up in Sparta. So from an absolute point of view, how does anyone say which values are best? That's kind of disturbing. As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to make the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. — Marchesk

This question is a dead end. Being a point of ethics, there is no "how." There is no absolute point of view. Ethics are, by their nature, of a point of view and that's how they function. Take Augistino's position here. He views it as just seeing back and thinking about nothing, of holding no point of view, of refraining from where his ethical commentary is not needed.

But's that not what is actually happening. His position is actually advocating a particular point of view: that the present culture of a given society is right for that society.

False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only. — Agustino

That tends to happen naturally anyway. Are you just promoting meritocracy? Flesh that out for other aspects of life in addition to work. How is the superior plumber treated legally?

That tends to happen naturally anyway. Are you just promoting meritocracy? Flesh that out for other aspects of life in addition to work. How is the superior plumber treated legally? — Marchesk

Yes I would agree with a form of meritocracy. As legal matters have very little to do with plumbing, he is treated equally. He is no more right to swindle his clients than the worse off plumber is for example.

But that's not true because you aren't giving respect to the worse plumber as well. You are saying that, by failing to be a good plumber, they are less deserving of social respect and reward than the good plumber.

That's not valuing each individual for what they can do. It's giving greater absolute value to those who are more skilled in a particular area. You don't just want to give the good plumber and award for good plumbing. You are insisting the good plumber ought to have greater wealth, social respect,etc., etc. than the worse plumber.

Take Augistino's position here. He views it as just seeing back and thinking about nothing, of holding no point of view, of refraining from where his ethical commentary is not needed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, but I attempt to evacuate my predisposition, and try to look at things from the point of view of others. It makes me realise that everyone wants to have their views respected, and to be able to live life as they want to. Therefore, I realise the importance of respecting different ways of life and different cultures so long as they respect mine. My land, my rules, your land, your rules :)

But that's not true because you aren't giving respect to the worse plumber as well. You are saying that, by failing to b a good plumber, they are less deserving of social respect and reward than the good plumber. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Only in-so-far as that respect depends on plumbing. People aren't only respected for their jobs. They may also be respected for their kindness, for their morality, etc. etc. In these respects, the worse plumber may be better off than the better one.

That's not valuing each individual for what they can do. It's giving greater absolute value to those who are more skilled in a particular area. You don't just want to give the good plumber and award for good plumbing. You are insisting the good plumber ought to have greater wealth, social respect,etc., etc. than the worse plumber.

Yes it is - it's simply admitting that one does better work than the other, and therefore he earns more than the other one. Money is simply the way society values the work - of course society and other people prefer the best work if this is possible.

Therefore, I realise the importance of respecting different ways of life and different cultures so long as they respect mine. My land, my rules, your land, your rules :) — Agustino

That sounds good and reasonable and all, and it is for many things. But then you have things like female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide sometimes, and what not where your land is some people in the land treating others very badly.

As a parallel, I can say your house, your rules, but if I found out you were beating and doing terrible things to your spouse, children, or roommates, then I will be motivated to take some sort of action.

Of course that parallel can fail because I can just get the police involved in your case, whereas it might take a war in the case of a sovereign country, and all the fallout that comes with that.

So whereas I might wish that Western values could prevent genocide or the use of child soldiers, to do so would be very bloody and messy. Unless those values can be spread in a non-violent means. And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong.

That sounds good and reasonable and all, and it is for many things. But then you have things like female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide sometimes, and what not where your land is some people in the land treating others very badly. — Marchesk

Sure, as cruel as female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide etc. sounds to us, I believe that it is not OUR responsability to fix it, but the responsability of those countries where it happens. Most certainly their citizens aren't happy either, and sooner or later, as they have always done in history, they will take action themselves and fix their own problems, by the sword if needed.

As a parallel, I can say your house, your rules, but if I found out you were beating and doing terrible things to your spouse, children, or roommates, then I will be motivated to take some sort of action. — Marchesk

Yes, because we live in the same country, so naturally if you find out that I undertake illegal actions (according to the laws of our country), which are against the law which governs us both, then you are entitled to take action. But if we lived in different countries, and say in my country it was acceptable by law to use physical violence in certain circumstances (such as if my family was rude to me), then according to what law will you judge me to have done wrong? The law of your country? That certainly doesn't seem fair.

As Wittgenstein has stated, and I agree with him, criticisms of ways of life can only come from inside. From inside a culture or a country, people can decide they no longer want a certain law/rule, and thereby get rid of it, by force if necessary. But it is wrong when somebody imposes things from the outside.

As Wittgenstein has stated, and I agree with him, criticisms of ways of life can only come from inside. From inside a culture or a country, people can decide they no longer want a certain law/rule, and thereby get rid of it, by force if necessary. But it is wrong when somebody imposes things from the outside. — Agustino

Usually it is wrong to impose things from the outside (although, is that an absolute or something?). And it often has bad consequences, because nobody likes to be imposed upon. But on the other hand, at what point do we decide that we're all in this together on the same planet?

It's also a question of who doesn't want the imposing. Would American slaves before the Civil War have welcomed a foreign power putting an end to the institution? What if the foreign power had the means to flip things and put blacks in power to subjugate the whites? Then would the blacks be resentful of the foreign power, or become close allies?

Usually it is wrong to impose things from the outside (although, is that an absolute or something?). And it often has bad consequences, because nobody likes to be imposed upon. But on the other hand, at what point do we decide that we're all in this together on the same planet? — Marchesk

It's only an absolute in-so-far as it's a meta-statement applicable to different ways of life. It's not in the same class of statements as rules which apply within a particular way of life, but rather the very structure that governs ways of life themselves.

As for being on the same planet... we're only on the same planet in-so-far as we can affect each other - in-so-far as we share a way of life. Which, I dare say, is not that much. We much rather live in our small communities, than on the planet. We are on the same planet when it comes to things like global warming etc. which affects all of us, but when it comes to day to day matters, we certainly live very little on the same planet, although globalisation and trade have changed things a little.

It's only an absolute in-so-far as it's a meta-statement applicable to different ways of life. It's not in the same class of statements as rules which apply within a particular way of life, but rather the very structure that governs ways of life themselves. — Agustino

Well, there have been more than a few societies who decided that imposing their way on others was not only okay, but necessary. The Romans weren't exactly live and let live.

Well, there have been more than a few societies who decided that imposing their way on others was not only okay, but necessary. The Romans weren't exactly live and let live. — Marchesk

Exactly. When that happens, it becomes a threat to other societies, and the discussion becomes open for the possibility of war, to defend oneself. That is why I emphasised supra-cultural norms, such as "my land, my rules, your land, your rules" to promote toleration of other countries/cultures instead of mutual violence. There's no moral need to do this; just a pragmatic need. It's much better for both to respect each other, and nothing is to be gained by subjugating other cultures.

The problem is you are disrespecting the worse plumber. You say he ought to be a better plumber, even though that isn't at all necessary as an individual. (indeed, it might be WRONG for him, as being a better plumber might affect what else he does, to the detriment of himself or society). You are actually ignoring how the worse plumber is better in other ways. You are not simply admitting the better plumber is better at plumbing. You are saying the worse plumber is a less deserving person because he doesn't have the greatest plumbing skills.

Money is simply the way society values the work - of course society and other people prefer the best work if this is possible. — Agustino

But this misses the crucial question: what work is valued an how much? Society pays for the work which is most in demand, not on the basis of how much it is needed, what it provides or, in some cases, whether it is actually good quality. More critically, since it is a person skills which are valued economically, it is a measure of not just amount or quality of work, but rather how valuable a person is in comparison to others. So does the better plumber deserve more money than the worse plumber? Maybe, for his better plumbing work... but then what of the worse plumber does some sort of other work or activity? What if he gives-up hours he could have spend practicing plumbing to help out his family? Or entertain is friends? Or plant trees to rejuvenate a local environment? Then exactly how much more does the better plumber deserve for the better plumbing? Should they be a billionaire while the worse plumber is staving? The question is far more complicated than simply adoring the expert with the greatest skill above all others.

And that is perhaps the ugliest part of your argument: the snivelling contempt for those who do not excel. You think those who excel are worth more than those who do not. Not merely in a monetary reward sense, but in a value sense. You think those who excel should be adored of the who a merely average or the mediocre. It's an ego thing. You think those who excel should be said to be better people, to occupy a special place of "genius" where they are understood to be for more amazing or important than anyone else.

Instead of the leftist position that others must observe rights, I much rather prefer the conservative position that others must not interfere with rights. It seems both more tolerant, and more ethical. — Agustino

I understand this distinction to be between positive rights and negative rights, wherein a person in a society claims to have positive rights that entail some action is taken by a government (e.g., a guaranteed standard of living) and negative rights entail the government refrain from acting in a way that violates a right (e.g., freedom of speech). You seem to be arguing that the political left make some positive rights claims, whereas the political right make only negative rights claims. It is not clear to me this is an accurate description of the respective positions. In particular, I can conceive of a leftist position that aims at equality through negative rights and distinguishes itself from the political right in terms of the negative rights that are claimed.

The problem is you are disrespecting the worse plumber. You say he ought to be a better plumber, even though that isn't at all necessary as an individual. (indeed, it might be WRONG for him, as being a better plumber might affect what else he does, to the detriment of himself or society). You are actually ignoring how the worse plumber is better in other ways. You are not simply admitting the better plumber is better at plumbing. You are saying the worse plumber is a less deserving person because he doesn't have the greatest plumbing skills. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this is false. While I may have less respect (which is not the same as disrespect) towards him when it comes to plumbing, I may have much higher respect for him when it comes to kindness, loyalty, and moral character compared to the better plumber. Therefore I am not saying that he is less deserving, nor am I saying that he necessarily must be a better plumber than he already is. That is for him to decide, because only he can know if his time is better spent developing his plumbing skills, or otherwise, for example, doing his duty and taking care of his children, etc.

But this misses the crucial question: what work is valued an how much? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Depends on the context of this question. If we expand the question, and ask should society value the work of the lawyer more than that of the plumber and so forth, then we'll get into a very big mess. I agree that there needs to be some government regulations here, and a pure free market won't do.

So does the better plumber deserve more money than the worse plumber? Maybe, for his better plumbing work... but then what of the worse plumber does some sort of other work or activity? What if he gives-up hours he could have spend practicing plumbing to help out his family? Or entertain is friends? Or plant trees to rejuvenate a local environment? — TheWillowOfDarkness

If the worse plumber does some other work, then he'll surely be more deserving in that other work than the better plumber who focuses just on plumbing. He'll probably be much more respected for his social and moral values compared to the better plumber, who while better at his craft, is sorely lacking compared to the worse plumber in the moral sphere. He'll be rewarded by having more people desire to be his friends, and desire to be in his company, as he is a good citizen, expousing values that other people would like to emulate. So while for plumbing he will be paid less, for his other activities he will earn awards that the better plumber will not.

Then exactly how much more does the better plumber deserve for the better plumbing? — TheWillowOfDarkness

He should earn exactly what his work deserves. It being better work, it will deserve more, but most likely not in the range of one of them starving, and the other being a billionaire. I'm not saying no reward for the worse plumber, and ALL rewards for the better plumber. Each according to their work.

You think those who excel are worth more than those who do not. Not merely in a monetary reward sense, but in a value sense. You think those who excel should be adored of the who a merely average or the mediocre. It's an ego thing. You think those who excel should be said to be better people, to occupy a special place of "genius" where they are understood to be for more amazing or important than anyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In the domain where they excel, they should be respected more than others. Not across all domains though. It would make no sense to say that the best lawyer deserves more respect as a lawyer than the best plumber deserves respect in-so-far as he is the best plumber. So I think that people need to be rewarded according to their work. Best work means best rewards.

I understand this distinction to be between positive rights and negative rights, wherein a person in a society claims to have positive rights that entail some action is taken by a government (e.g., a guaranteed standard of living) and negative rights entail the government refrain from acting in a way that violates a right (e.g., freedom of speech). You seem to be arguing that the political left make some positive rights claims, whereas the political right make only negative rights claims. It is not clear to me this is an accurate description of the respective positions. In particular, I can conceive of a leftist position that aims at equality through negative rights and distinguishes itself from the political right in terms of the negative rights that are claimed. — Soylent

There's nothing in particular that I disagree with here.

Tackling bits and pieces that were the result of post-editing and I hadn't seen before:

Amazon produced the first season of a tv series based on a Ray Bradbury short story where the Axis won WW2. It's called 'The Man in the High Castle', and it's set in 1962 in an America divided between Nazis Germany and Imperial Japan. As such, you get exposed to a different set of values promoted by those societies, and the dissidents living in it. It's interesting, if grim.

The biggest value in those societies seems to be promotion of the state apparatus. Individual lives (unless you're high command or Emperor) are to be sacrificed to the state. And of course all those lives not deemed worthwhile are either subjugated or exterminated. — Marchesk

Don't forget who produced those movies (ie, progressives, liberals). Hence the values of those societies are most likely a strawman - in fact, I believe that if Nazi Germany had won the war, it wouldn't have been long until Hitler, as well as the regime based on the fuhrer's dictatorship was eliminated by the Germans themselves. Let us not forget that there were several assassination attempts on Hitler's life even during the war - in all likelihood, if the war had ended, there would have been an increase in such attempts, as more and more would focus their attention on internal affairs.

Also, do not forget that Hitler himself was a National SOCIALIST, who greatly respected Karl Marx, agreeing with almost his entire ideology, with the only significant difference being the focus on the importance of the Volk (race), whereas Marx emphasised the international proletariat (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html) . State control has never so much been a right-wing emphasis, but rather a left wing one. I mean it makes sense if one believes with absolute certainty that they hold the right values to use even the power of the state if necessary to make those values universal.

And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong — Marchesk

Sure, because in our culture, it makes sense for female circumcision to be wrong, and hence we can argue, and prove, from our basic values that it is wrong. But these are most likely not the basic values of Islamic countries. Hence from within their systems, in cannot be proven to be wrong. However, their systems can change, and probably will, but it takes time, and they need to change from the inside. People themselves have to decide if they want to continue having female circumcision, or they don't, based on their own internal criteria.

It's also a question of who doesn't want the imposing. Would American slaves before the Civil War have welcomed a foreign power putting an end to the institution? What if the foreign power had the means to flip things and put blacks in power to subjugate the whites? Then would the blacks be resentful of the foreign power, or become close allies? — Marchesk

Yes they would have welcomed the foreign power, and even befriended them. (Although I doubt that the foreign power wouldn't just take matters in its own hands and colonise both the blacks and the whites). But if you consider how the blacks gained equal rights, you would realise that it was through internal criticism of culture - using the culture's own values, they showed that there was a contradiction there, which led, slowly, to them gaining equal rights, and the culture responding to their criticism.

Recently I have turned more and more right-wing, and I am interested to discuss with members of this forum, many whom I know to be leftist/socialists. The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. The left claims to be tolerant, but only for things which respect their fundamental values; towards anything else, absolutely intolerant. But there are so many different ways of life under the sun. — Agustino

In my experience when people describe themselves as becoming more right-wing, they often have to posit some sort of imaginary leftist position that they feel they can measure their shift against. The use of 'etc.' seems like a lazy marker to me of this. The rise of the movement for 'rights' is a largely centrist product of the coming together of free democracies, and of indigenous developments in those democratic countries, sometimes aped then by autocracies who want to appear to join the democratic club.

I am 66 years old and so remember in my own country, the UK, when racism was rife, women were second-class citizens and homosexuality was illegal. I regard it as a fine achievement that in matters of race, gender and sexual preference, the UK is a more liberal and tolerant place than when I was young, and that this is often nowadays not a right/left issue: the British Conservatives introduced gay marriage, for instance.

Are leftists from here trying to impose these values on unwilling foreigners on their own soil? I see no sign of this, but would welcome evidence. Is there some?

I see no evidence actually that leftists have much power anywhere at present, South America excepted.

I also feel it's not inevitable that as one gets older one shifts to the right. I haven't, although my views have changed considerably. Do you mean that at heart you too would like to be racist, sexist and homophobic, or what? What are your specific complaints, and who are specific examples of the perpetrators? Without specifics this is all rhetoric.

"Leftist Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of Britain’s Labour Party"
The Washington Post, this may say more about what American's know about British politics, but it shows that we categorize people by where they stand on issues.

In my experience when people describe themselves as becoming more right-wing, they often have to posit some sort of imaginary leftist position that they feel they can measure their shift against. The use of 'etc.' seems like a lazy marker to me of this. — mcdoodle

Considering that in the quoted bit "etc" refers merely to some labels that some Leftists use to (mis)label the Right. How is that lazy or suggesting an imaginary leftist position?

I regard it as a fine achievement that in matters of race, gender and sexual preference, the UK is a more liberal and tolerant place than when I was young, and that this is often nowadays not a right/left issue: the British Conservatives introduced gay marriage, for instance. — mcdoodle

The Left, to a large degree, has succeeded in making it unacceptable in the cultural landscape of Europe to even consider, for example, the possibility that gay marriage should be illegal as an option. Someone who does this today, either from the Left or from the Right, will be thoroughly shouted at (discredited out of hand) by all the Leftist intellectual elite (which is in fact 90% of our intellectual elite) (look what's happening to Donald Trump). Hence the Right doesn't even have a choice there - they have to introduce gay marriage if they want to stay in power and avoid criticism - it becomes a pragmatic issue. But this is the result of the Left which has imposed its values over most of the West.

If you go look in the elite intellectual circles of European and American Universities (especially English speaking) you will find that a vast vast majority of students are hard-line Leftist. Dare to say that gay marriage should be illegal, they will not even talk to you. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html). You will be thrown out and looked down upon. The Left has so thoroughly dominated the intellectual circles of Europe that they have effectively created a culture where it has become unacceptable to go away from the party line. If you do, you are a racist, xenophobe, misogynist etc. They have done exactly what I am saying: they have imposed a way of life on everyone, justifying it as these values being "universal". The problem is that a vast number of European/American citizens do not agree with these values. In fact, a lot of these changes bear no historical nor rational necessity based on traditional Western values of occurring.

Are leftists from here trying to impose these values on unwilling foreigners on their own soil? I see no sign of this, but would welcome evidence. Is there some? — mcdoodle

NGOs going to the Middle East to teach Muslim women how to be Western for example. The West attempting to impose democracy over different regions of the globe (including Africa and the Middle East). The West's continuous attempt to attack Russia's authoritarian regime as being morally wrong. Need I list more?

I see no evidence actually that leftists have much power anywhere at present, South America excepted. — mcdoodle

Go on a University campus in the UK :) Even the English Conservatives count as left now - because they have been forced to become leftist in spirit, while in letter they remain right-wing.

Do you mean that at heart you too would like to be racist, sexist and homophobic, or what? What are your specific complaints, and who are specific examples of the perpetrators? Without specifics this is all rhetoric. — mcdoodle

No. I mean that this culturally intolerant Left is dangerous, and it is dangerous to the world, as well as to the West itself - because they think they absolutely have the right values, and therefore must enforce these values by force and ostracisation if necessary. It's not the homosexuals, or other races, or etc. who are dangerous. It's the Left. The Left has ensured that across the Western world, one will be treated as a social outcast if they dare not submit in belief towards mantras such as "equality for all", "equal rights for homosexuals", etc. It's good to have discussions and talk about whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and of course vote on it, and perhaps even approve it. But to attempt to impose it, and consider anyone who disagrees to be a monster morally speaking - that is terribly wrong, and terribly dangerous.

No. I mean that this culturally intolerant Left is dangerous, and it is dangerous to the world, as well as to the West itself - because they think they absolutely have the right values, and therefore must enforce these values by force and ostracisation if necessary. It's not the homosexuals, or other races, or etc. who are dangerous. It's the Left. The Left has ensured that across the Western world, one will be treated as a social outcast if they dare not submit in belief towards mantras such as "equality for all", "equal rights for homosexuals", etc. It's good to have discussions and talk about whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and of course vote on it, and perhaps even approve it. But to attempt to impose it, and consider anyone who disagrees to be a monster morally speaking - that is terribly wrong, and terribly dangerous. — Agustino

This is the poor persecuted conservative meme. All rightwing memes are counterfactual, but this one is a doozy.

Of course you can't even give an example of this alleged "intolerance." It's purely a fabrication of the Right. I'll demand you provide a citation now, just to watch you squirm and gloss. You'll probably end up whining about some college kids protesting some homophobic college administrator, which will expose the counterfactuality of the meme - as if college kids hold political power.

This is also the reverso-meme. A classic. Progressives work for political equal rights for various minorities, and rightwingers claim that fighting for equal rights is "intolerance." A perfect example of the pathological projection of the conservative mind. Freaky.

Pretty silly thinking you could get away with this lumpen conservative underclass rhetoric here. You might want to post this at Hannity.com . You'll find a receptive audience.

This is the poor persecuted conservative meme. All rightwing memes are counterfactual, but this one is a doozy. — Landru Guide Us

Classical, another instance of labeling :) Also another instance of attempting to get a reaction out of me. Curious that those tactics written of long ago by Saul Alinsky have become so well in-grained into left activists. So let me put things straight. What you wrote above is no argument, but an unsupported generalisation backed up by labeling aimed at marginalisation through ridicule and rhetoric.

Of course you can't even give an example of this alleged "intolerance." — Landru Guide Us

I did. It's in the post above :) .

as if college kids hold political power. — Landru Guide Us

In their communities, universities, yes they do (ever heard of sororities/fraternities in US, and societies and student unions in UK?). Power isn't achieved only by money or political office. It's also achieved by numbers, especially if the numbers are concentrated in one small community such as becomes the case in a University (also, student-led organisations have quite a lot of power in influencing what happens in their local community, the university). The fact that left-wingers disagree with right-wingers is not a problem in itself. What the problem is, is that they brush aside right-wingers with arrogance, and self-righteousness, without understanding that they could be wrong. They do not defeat right-wingers by argument... but rather by protests, by insulting, by labeling and by instigating - that is what is wrong.

A classic. Progressives work for political equal rights for various minorities, and rightwingers claim that fighting for equal rights is "intolerance." A perfect example of the pathological projection of the conservative mind. Freaky. — Landru Guide Us

Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment.

Pretty silly thinking you could get away with this lumpen conservative underclass rhetoric here. — Landru Guide Us

Well I fail to see a counter argument Landru. As far as I see, yes I did "get away with it", as you say. I've argued that there are no objective moral values, and it is very hard for us to figure out which the correct values are for a certain situation. Therefore this mandates epistemic humility, instead of seeking to "fight for" equal rights, or any other particular value. It also mandates that while we ourselves hold values, we respect the right of different communities and cultures to hold different values than we do, instead of attempting to put "equal rights" down their throats, and then labeling them as intolerant and holding them morally culpable when they refuse.

The version of the Right that I supported above short-circuits the Left by a tripartite move: first, denying the existence of God (which the Left needs more than the Right), second denying that the values of the Left are universal and absolute (and denying that the Right must share them, which you and mcdoodle assume it does, or otherwise it should in order to remain moral), third affirming difference and toleration of different values as pragmatic rules aimed at preventing intra-cultural conflict given our inability to decide on universal and absolute values.

Recently I have turned more and more right-wing, and I am interested to discuss with members of this forum, many whom I know to be leftist/socialists. The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. The left claims to be tolerant, but only for things which respect their fundamental values; towards anything else, absolutely intolerant. But there are so many different ways of life under the sun. Who am I to condemn, for example the Islamic way of life and go tell them that their women should have a choice to wear the burkha etc etc? It's their fundamental right to decide what rules are to be obeyed on their lands, and what rules are not. Everyone has their own laws on their lands, in their families, and true toleration means not interfering with these. In fact, the world is beautiful precisely because there is diversity and there are many different customs, religions, and cultures. This diversity should be respected I believe, and we should not aim towards a globalisation of culture, in which we slowly aim for the whole planet to have and share the same values. All that is required, I think, are a set of international values, along the following lines: "My land, my rules. Your land, your rules. I will not interfere with you unless you do something that is threatening or damaging to me" — Agustino

You say you're turning right-wing, and then proceed to espouse a position that these days is very characteristic of the Left, namely identity politics and multiculturalism. The idea that Europeans should not condemn the barbaric and oppressive practices of certain regimes in Islamic countries, because this is an imperialist attack on all Muslims, is now the standard far Left position, sadly. As if the most powerful and most conservative sections of the Islamic world are the legitimate representatives of Muslim people, those that we must respect in the name of diversity. As if we should respect laws that oppress women, as somehow embodying a sacrosanct culture, while those women have no say in changing these laws. "It's their fundamental right to decide", you say, but fail to note that most Muslims, least of all women, have no such right to decide.

But the fact that you see your position as right-wing--which I don't think is a crazy thing to think at all--while it actually has a lot in common with much of the Left, does, I think, demonstrate just what is wrong with the Left today. In any case, the terms "Left" and "Right" have become pretty useless.

You say you're turning right-wing, and then proceed to espouse a position that these days is very characteristic of the Left, namely identity politics and multiculturalism. The idea that Europeans should not condemn the barbaric and oppressive practices of certain regimes in Islamic countries, because this is an imperialist attack on all Muslims, is now the standard far Left position, sadly — jamalrob

It's interesting you say this. Can you provide some sources which identify with the Left and claim that cultures must respect themselves and allow each other to govern themselves as they see fit, instead of attempt to impose certain values one upon the other? Can you name a Left source which states that "equality for all" isn't a universal value and therefore it doesn't have to be shared by the whole world?

As if the most powerful and most conservative sections of the Islamic world are the legitimate representatives of Muslim people, those that we must respect in the name of diversity. As if we should respect laws that oppress women, as somehow embodying a sacrosanct culture, while those women have no say in changing these laws. "It's their fundamental right to decide", you say, but fail to note that most Muslims, least of all women, have no such right to decide. — jamalrob

Why should they have a right to decide in a democratic fashion? If their state hasn't granted them such a right, why should they have it? Remember that human beings start by having no more rights than a tiger has; whatever rights they get afterwards, they get because of their state. You presuppose those Leftist values of equality etc. etc. when you speak like you do above. But you forget that these communities may not share those values.

I said it's the fundamental right of their community to decide. If their community has decided by the way it has organised itself that they shall be ruled by an authoritarian regime who makes all decision for the masses, than that's how it should be. If the masses are no longer happy with it, they need to start and organise a revolution to change their society as they deem fit, as it has always happened through history. When people weren't happy, it wasn't that foreigners intervened to settle the matter. When Martin Luther King was fighting for black equality, it was from inside American culture, with no external intervention. If Muslim women truly want a say in how they should dress, etc. then why don't they organise themselves? Why must we go in there to tell them about equality, about having to choose how they want to live, etc.?

The truth is, that in many of those communities, women DO NOT WANT more freedom. I haven't lived in Islamic countries to know their culture well enough to be able to give you a concrete example, but, for example, my grandmother is Eastern European and she could never conceive of a woman being happy if she didn't have a husband who was the head of the family and the source of authority on which she relied. She couldn't conceive of herself as happy if she had to manage finances, pay the taxes, etc. And she was very happy focusing on being a teacher (her job), taking care of young kids and teaching them, and at home doing the housework, while her husband did everything that had to do with family representation in society. If you went to her and started talking about this "women should have a right to decide" blah blah, she would kick you out of the house. You presuppose everyone shares those values, but that is false. And she felt quite bad that in modern society women like her were looked down upon as being inferior. She never felt she was inferior. She actually felt moral superiority. I'm not saying that she really was morally superior, as I don't believe one culture is superior to another. However, I am merely telling you how she felt (and she felt that way because towards the end of her life, when she moved to a different country, she felt oppressed and looked down upon by others), and the fact that your view of the world neglects that there are people like this, while the right-wing view I have exposed takes into account for this and doesn't oppress those people, even when they are minorities, and doesn't encourage that they be disconsidered for holding different values.

The other sad part is that the Left has mobilised science in order to prove its values being the "most natural". But again, all experiments are flawed, as they are performed on people who already, a priori, share the values of the Left. This scientific basis of morality is also dangerous - it ignores the fact that morality is cultural. What is shameful in one culture, may be a source of pride in another - and there is no right answer that science can determine about which is better. It is all cultural specific.

It's interesting you say this. Can you provide some sources which identify with the Left and claim that cultures must respect themselves and allow each other to govern themselves as they see fit, instead of attempt to impose certain values one upon the other? Can you name a Left source which states that "equality for all" isn't a universal value and therefore it doesn't have to be shared by the whole world? — Agustino

I don't have time to look out examples, but they're not all that hard to find. The branding, by sections of the Left, of many critics of Islamism (including Muslims and ex-Muslims) as "Islamophobic" (e.g., in Left-leaning student unions, one of which refused to condemn ISIS because they thought such a condemnation would be Islamophobic), the association of Islamists and the far Left in the UK (e.g., the Respect Party and the Stop the War coalition), and the toleration of Hamas with its reactionary politics among the supporters of the Palestinian movement, are well-known examples. The trajectory of Left-wing politics has been towards identity politics for the past several decades. In identity politics, what is important is the group, or as you say, the "community", and if a person's values and ambitions do not coincide with what are thought to be the collective values and ambitions of their group (race, sex, whatever), then they're stuffed. This is where socialism and your communitarian conservatism come together (even though they're very different political traditions).

Otherwise, I don't have time to address the rest of your post in detail or describe the struggles of liberal campaigners in the Middle East. In a nutshell I think you're saying that democrats and leftists in liberal democracies ought not to try to impose their favoured political and cultural values on countries where those values are rejected by those in power. Well, I'm not a supporter of neoconservatism and generally don't advocate such impositions from the outside. To that extent I think you're right that it is for people within a state to fight for freedom and equality if they want it.

Equally though, neither do I accept the right of religious conservatives, tribal sheikhs, absolute monarchies, and corrupt authoritarians, to impose their interpretation of Islam on millions of people. Why should they represent the true voice of the community, just because they managed to grab the power and have managed to hang on to it, often brutally? You talk as if you think the regimes of the Middle East were established by peaceful consensus by accepted people's representatives, but this is very far from the truth.

You may be aware, but speaking up against the powerful in the Middle East is not an easy thing to do, and I am not comfortable with a complete abandonment of those who are brave enough to fight. Generally I think you have a simplistic view of human society; for example, the divisions within many societies--especially those of the Middle East--are as deep and as explosive as the divisions you think you see between those countries and those of the West. Your us and them narrative just doesn't fit the facts.

What I advocate is to make ideas available, for whoever can make use of them, rather than imposing anything. The ideas of freedom and equality are available to all, and to me they are high points of human culture that still have a lot of potential. You accuse me of presuming, and this is true to a degree: I presume that what human beings share is more important than any supposed racial, ethnic, or cultural differences, which is why I treat the values I believe in necessarily as universal.

I don't have time to look out examples for you. They're not hard to find. The branding, by sections of the Left, of many critics of Islamism (including Muslims and ex-Muslims) as "Islamophobic" (e.g., in Left-leaning student unions, one of which refused to condemn ISIS because they thought such a condemnation would be Islamophobic), the association of Islamists and the far Left in the UK (e.g., the Respect Party and the Stop the War coalition), and the toleration of Hamas with its reactionary politics among the supporters of the Palestinian movement, are well-known examples. The trajectory of Left-wing politics has been towards identity politics for the past several decades. In identity politics, what is important is the group, or as you say, the "community", and if a person's values and ambitions do not coincide with what are thought to be the collective values and ambitions of their group (race, sex, whatever), then they're stuffed. — jamalrob

Yes but I wouldn't agree with these views, hence why I haven't identified as Left. I don't agree, for example, that we must not go to war to destroy ISIS. I was always pro bombing Syria and pro totally destroying these Islamic terrorists. I am pro attacking and destroying organisations and even civilisations if they pose a serious threat to our national security. However, I am against interfering with the region apart from actions which are a response towards threats and/or attacks originating from there. I think civilisations and cultures should maintain their cultural integrity, all the while trading and interacting economically with each other - this would hopefully minimise the need of armed conflict between them over the long term.

Equally though, neither do I accept the right of religious conservatives, tribal sheikhs, absolute monarchies, and corrupt authoritarians, to impose their interpretation of Islam on millions of people. Why should they represent the true voice of the community, just because they managed to grab the power and have managed to hang on to it, often brutally? You talk as if you think the regimes of the Middle East were established by peaceful consensus by accepted people's representatives, but this is very far from the truth. — jamalrob

Even if established otherwise - it's up to the people themselves to fight for changes from inside if they want them. They may agree with an authoritarian regime, which wasn't established with their explicit consent. Why would you assume they don't?

What I advocate is to make ideas available, for whoever can make use of them, rather than imposing anything. — jamalrob

Yes, I don't disagree with this. But ideas are often the result of misinformation, which is potentially more dangerous than lack of information, for the masses of people. For the intellectual elite, of course it's a different story - because they have the skills necessary to understand how ideas relate to one another, and what gives rise to particular ideas (the conditions for their possibility). However, when your average lad from the West in a secular society reads a title like "Study shows unmarried women who have frequent sex are happier than unmarried women who don't", what will he think of his Christian, abstinent lady friend? He'll be like "Hurr hurr... she's losing her life, how stupid she is, I knew all along!" - all the while failing to understand that the criteria for happiness in a secular community is different than the criteria of happiness in a religious community; so while a study done in a secular community may reveal such findings, it doesn't mean that they translate and can be applicable to religious communities who have a different criteria of happiness. So. How is our average man, when exposed to such news, be able to come to a reasonable, and tolerant view of different values? How can we build communities which tolerate different ways of life instead of being antagonistic to one another? (I don't see a way of achieving this apart from assigning an intellectual elite with the job of policing information - we can't expect your average man to have an IQ > 130 - and even this solution is highly problematic) So much of conflicts around the world have a cultural foundation today - because we don't respect each other's values well, and try to think that we are correct in an absolute sense, and others are wrong in the same absolute sense. That's why countries like Portugal have internal conflicts between Catholics, and secularists, especially amongst the young people.

You accuse me of presuming, and this is true to a degree: I presume that what human beings share is more important than any supposed racial, ethnic, or cultural differences, which is why I treat the values I believe in necessarily as universal. — jamalrob

Well what all human beings share is the desire to be free to be who they want to be, and not be oppressed for it (again, even this isn't certain, but I personally believe it). So this necessitates that we allow others to hold different values than we do, without ostracising them for it. This includes the religious-minded, the dogmatists, the authoritarians, etc. with the exception of when they attempt to impose things on us, when of course we have the right to react and stop them. However, this is not a philosophically air-tight argument -> which is why I prefer my version: for pragmatic reasons, to avoid conflict, we must not interfere with others' culture, and they must not interfere with ours. "My land, my rules, your land, your rules". This is better since it doesn't justify it morally, something that I think would be impossible, however it does accept submission to the rules of others on their lands.

Instead of the leftist position that others must observe rights, I much rather prefer the conservative position that others must not interfere with rights. It seems both more tolerant, and more ethical. Hopefully this is enough to get some discussion started — Agustino

Not so much the leftist position but rather a bizarre conservative fetish about being put upon when the rule of law applies to somebody other than rich entitled people. Get use to the fact that your views are dissociated from reality.