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.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
False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only.It is to say the better plumber ought to be respected while the worse on ought not be.
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
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? — Marchesk
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
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.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
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.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.
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. — Marchesk
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
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? — 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. — 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. — Marchesk
Money is simply the way society values the work - of course society and other people prefer the best work if this is possible. — Agustino
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
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
But this misses the crucial question: what work is valued an how much? — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
Then exactly how much more does the better plumber deserve for the better plumbing? — TheWillowOfDarkness
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
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
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.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
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.And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong — 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.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
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. — mcdoodle
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
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
I see no evidence actually that leftists have much power anywhere at present, South America excepted. — mcdoodle
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. — Agustino
This is the poor persecuted conservative meme. All rightwing memes are counterfactual, but this one is a doozy. — Landru Guide Us
Of course you can't even give an example of this alleged "intolerance." — Landru Guide Us
as if college kids hold political power. — Landru Guide Us
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
Pretty silly thinking you could get away with this lumpen conservative underclass rhetoric here. — Landru Guide Us
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 — jamalrob
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
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 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
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
What I advocate is to make ideas available, for whoever can make use of them, rather than imposing anything. — jamalrob
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.