Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by siam View Post
    "This is where Islam fails"---Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE) has interesting theories on the rise and fall of "civilizations" (or rather, of large social groups). When we consider the old wisdom that "necessity is the mother of invention", then those societies/cultures which are too successful---will inevitably become homogenizing and thus stagnate. This is an interesting way to look at "Modernity" as well---it has been the most successful paradigm that replaced all previous paradigms....?....and so it has "failed" and now we see toxic religio-national "fundamentalism" springing up as push-back?

    ...But this type of zero-sum exclusivism cannot work in a globalized world....it will create too much chaos and human beings do not adapt to chaos well....we are "wired" to find connections, meanings, and balance...
    I think the “push-back” comes from those who feel they have grievances, whether religion-based, race-based or economically based. And the solution surely, is for society to exercise greater inclusiveness, promote social justice and allocate a more equitable distribution of wealth.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      I think the “push-back” comes from those who feel they have grievances, whether religion-based, race-based or economically based. And the solution surely, is for society to exercise greater inclusiveness, promote social justice and allocate a more equitable distribution of wealth.
      Solution---Agree.
      However, it is also a fact that both nation-states(borders) and religio-philosophies are undergoing changes because of globalization, Buddhists in the Far East and South East Asia are grappling with ethico-moral principles of justice, economics, medical ethics ...etc and Some Eastern philosophers are advocating for Neo-Humanist Confucianism as an alternative. For Muslims, the events after 9/11 have forced us to rethink/re-evaluate the spaces/identities we occupy in the world, especially in light of the exclusivist "Purists" strains of Islam....

      In a changing environment--we all need to adapt and not all of us will want to stick with "Modernity"---we may want to find new identities and philosophies that better represent our aspirations and ethico-moral principles...?...Those of us who have successful traditions to look back to, can mine the wisdom of those traditions, others such as the more newer/emerging philosophies may need to work out the systems needed for complex group dynamics that can promote reciprocal, co-operative systems....

      Rather than pre-supposing there is only one right way, why not allow for many different ways/systems so people can choose what is right for them?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by siam View Post
        Solution---Agree.
        However, it is also a fact that both nation-states(borders) and religio-philosophies are undergoing changes because of globalization, Buddhists in the Far East and South East Asia are grappling with ethico-moral principles of justice, economics, medical ethics ...etc and Some Eastern philosophers are advocating for Neo-Humanist Confucianism as an alternative. For Muslims, the events after 9/11 have forced us to rethink/re-evaluate the spaces/identities we occupy in the world, especially in light of the exclusivist "Purists" strains of Islam....
        Yes there will be problems; there have always been problems as society evolves. And the world is ever changing in the light of rapidly developing technologies and changing moral values. But surely it’s not beyond human capacity to devise a more inclusive, more equitable society which excludes destructive religious or ideological political extremism.

        In a changing environment--we all need to adapt and not all of us will want to stick with "Modernity"---we may want to find new identities and philosophies that better represent our aspirations and ethico-moral principles...?...Those of us who have successful traditions to look back to, can mine the wisdom of those traditions, others such as the more newer/emerging philosophies may need to work out the systems needed for complex group dynamics that can promote reciprocal, co-operative systems....

        Rather than pre-supposing there is only one right way, why not allow for many different ways/systems so people can choose what is right for them?
        Sure, provided everyone is equally accepting of multiculturalism and equal rights for all citizens. The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          1) Yes there will be problems; there have always been problems as society evolves. And the world is ever changing in the light of rapidly developing technologies and changing moral values. But surely it’s not beyond human capacity to devise a more inclusive, more equitable society which excludes destructive religious or ideological political extremism.

          2)Sure, provided everyone is equally accepting of multiculturalism and equal rights for all citizens. The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
          1) In general I agree with you---One could say that because society evolves, there will be problems----in which case it is a good thing because otherwise it would mean there is no progress....
          Yet....
          Extreme inclusiveness that destroys identity will be unhelpful---and counter to the inherent human predisposition for names/labels. The characteristic that makes language comprehensible is the ability to exclude using names/labels, and descriptions/definitions. Our identities define us,(or rather we use identity to define us) and we construct meaning and purpose from such identity-constructs. The paradigms/meta-narratives (theistic or non-theistic) from which we construct particulars of meaning and purpose also give us our values and principles.
          Identity-constructs require a degree of exclusivity---or else they are useless as identity-constructs. Group identity-constructs require degrees of creativity and innovation in order to remain vital---yet social cohesion requires that there be a degree of stability. Therefore, in order for large, complex groups to remain dynamic they need to have a creative, counter-culture movement within them. Abuse in this area can lead to extremism....?...its a side effect of adaptability that we/group needs to be vigilant against...?....that is why there need to be rules/laws for the group....?...

          2)"everyone is equally accepting of multiculturalism"
          ---yes but whose "culture"? Multiculturism seems fine as long as the minority cultures "assimilate" to some degree to the majority culture?.
          The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
          ---Exactly. Even if we have some "universal" values such as killing is wrong---therefore abortion is wrong---the interpretation and implementation varies according to culture---In Japan, abortion can be performed upto 20 weeks under some (determined) circumstances....
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan
          Ireland has its own way of implementing the principles
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...lic_of_Ireland

          Even if the ("universal") principles are straightfoward and clear---Human circumstances are rarely black and white---there are often competing concerns, tensions between rightholders, degrees of rightness, wrongness....etc...
          Group "systems" will inevitably deal with these complexities in different ways.... Human social dynamics will progress but also regress depending on the environment and circumstances a group system finds itself in....Life/living on earth is not a multiple-choice questionnaire with only one right answer...Inevitably, one groups answer might be disapproved by another group, but that is the cost of the principle of human Dignity---to respect the values of the "other"....even if we may not hold to them ourselves....?....

          "equal rights for all citizens."
          ---and this is a "problem". The exclusivity in the concept of nation-states curtails freedom of movement. A citizen is determined by "belonging to" a nation-state which is inherently territorial (attached to a particular geographic location). Identity is often derived from this attachment to territory...and those excluded are not "equal" (not citizens). But a more robust understanding of the principle of Human Dignity (Humanity of equivalent worth) would mean re-evaluating the concept of nation-state identity-constructs....?....particularly in light of human trafficking from climate change, globalization and economics....

          https://www.ted.com/talks/noy_thrupk...s_how_it_works
          https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_bale...modern_slavery

          Comment


          • For Muslims today, one tension between Human Dignity and competing value systems is about the question of homosexuality...
            One Muslim scholar reflects on the issue by looking at how pre-modern Muslims grappled with these tensions....
            https://media.ed.ac.uk/media/How+Int...own/1_7bknqn66

            Comment


            • Originally posted by siam View Post
              1) In general I agree with you---One could say that because society evolves, there will be problems----in which case it is a good thing because otherwise it would mean there is no progress....
              Yet....
              Extreme inclusiveness that destroys identity will be unhelpful---and counter to the inherent human predisposition for names/labels. The characteristic that makes language comprehensible is the ability to exclude using names/labels, and descriptions/definitions. Our identities define us,(or rather we use identity to define us) and we construct meaning and purpose from such identity-constructs. The paradigms/meta-narratives (theistic or non-theistic) from which we construct particulars of meaning and purpose also give us our values and principles.
              Identity-constructs require a degree of exclusivity---or else they are useless as identity-constructs. Group identity-constructs require degrees of creativity and innovation in order to remain vital---yet social cohesion requires that there be a degree of stability. Therefore, in order for large, complex groups to remain dynamic they need to have a creative, counter-culture movement within them. Abuse in this area can lead to extremism....?...its a side effect of adaptability that we/group needs to be vigilant against...?....that is why there need to be rules/laws for the group....?...
              I said it’s not beyond human capacity to develop an inclusive society, not “extreme inclusiveness”. I was explicitly opposed to extremism. I specifically included the necessity for an equitable society which excluded extremism of all kinds...especially in the religious or political arena. And while your keep emphasising the need for a “degree of exclusivity” this, in my view is secondary to maintaining social cohesion. The danger of “exclusivity” is that one group will see itself as superior to other groups, thus entitling it to override the other, and this is not acceptable.

              2)"everyone is equally accepting of multiculturalism"
              ---yes but whose "culture"? Multiculturism seems fine as long as the minority cultures "assimilate" to some degree to the majority culture?.
              Preferably integrate, rather than "assimilate"! And in doing so create a new encompassing culture...it’s the story of all immigrant societies such as in the USA or Australia where I come from.

              The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
              ---Exactly. Even if we have some "universal" values such as killing is wrong---therefore abortion is wrong---the interpretation and implementation varies according to culture---In Japan, abortion can be performed upto 20 weeks under some (determined) circumstances....
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan
              Ireland has its own way of implementing the principles
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...lic_of_Ireland

              Even if the ("universal") principles are straightfoward and clear---Human circumstances are rarely black and white---there are often competing concerns, tensions between rightholders, degrees of rightness, wrongness....etc...
              Group "systems" will inevitably deal with these complexities in different ways.... Human social dynamics will progress but also regress depending on the environment and circumstances a group system finds itself in....Life/living on earth is not a multiple-choice questionnaire with only one right answer...Inevitably, one groups answer might be disapproved by another group, but that is the cost of the principle of human Dignity---to respect the values of the "other"....even if we may not hold to them ourselves....?....
              There’s always the base culture which is then modified as different circumstances arise.

              "equal rights for all citizens."
              ---and this is a "problem". The exclusivity in the concept of nation-states curtails freedom of movement. A citizen is determined by "belonging to" a nation-state which is inherently territorial (attached to a particular geographic location). Identity is often derived from this attachment to territory...and those excluded are not "equal" (not citizens). But a more robust understanding of the principle of Human Dignity (Humanity of equivalent worth) would mean re-evaluating the concept of nation-state identity-constructs....?....particularly in light of human trafficking from climate change, globalization and economics....

              https://www.ted.com/talks/noy_thrupk...s_how_it_works
              https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_bale...modern_slavery
              I don’t see the granting of “equal rights for all citizens" as a problem. It’s the basis of the US Constitution for example and the grounding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are good things.

              Originally posted by siam View Post
              For Muslims today, one tension between Human Dignity and competing value systems is about the question of homosexuality...
              One Muslim scholar reflects on the issue by looking at how pre-modern Muslims grappled with these tensions....
              https://media.ed.ac.uk/media/How+Int...own/1_7bknqn66
              Looks interesting but I don't have time to view it all. Could you précis it for me? Thanks.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                1) I said it’s not beyond human capacity to develop an inclusive society, not “extreme inclusiveness”. I was explicitly opposed to extremism. I specifically included the necessity for an equitable society which excluded extremism of all kinds...especially in the religious or political arena. And while your keep emphasising the need for a “degree of exclusivity” this, in my view is secondary to maintaining social cohesion. The danger of “exclusivity” is that one group will see itself as superior to other groups, thus entitling it to override the other, and this is not acceptable.

                2) Preferably integrate, rather than "assimilate"! And in doing so create a new encompassing culture...it’s the story of all immigrant societies such as in the USA or Australia where I come from.

                3) There’s always the base culture which is then modified as different circumstances arise.

                4) I don’t see the granting of “equal rights for all citizens" as a problem. It’s the basis of the US Constitution for example and the grounding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are good things.

                5) Looks interesting but I don't have time to view it all. Could you précis it for me? Thanks.
                1) Agree

                2) Why? why not respect all (value) differences (within some parameters)?
                We need to take another look at history?---the settlers of Australia and U.S. did not "integrate" to the culture of the peoples of the land---they forcibly imposed their "values" onto others!...?...Now...they want others to "integrate" to their values.....It is easier to say to others "integrate", when it is your own comfortable value system that others must adapt to....
                (As a Muslim, my concern is also about Wahabism --- they want Muslims to conform to their version of "Pure" Islam. If I want pluralism within Islam, then I would be a hypocrite if I did not want it for my non-Muslim brothers too?)

                Australia has made strides---it seems there is a reconciliation week? not sure what its about---but it acknowledges the cultures of the original Australian peoples...?...
                http://www.reconciliation.org.au/nrw/what-is-nrw/
                Nevertheless, Public Holidays seem to be very "European"..?....
                http://www.officeholidays.com/countr...alia/index.php

                3) Yes---that is my point. In Muslim-majority countries/countries with a Muslim heritage---the base culture would be Muslim, in countries with a Christian or Buddhist heritage, that would be the "base culture". I don't have any problems with people integrating with the base culture/heritage. This system has worked fine in some instances. But, for now, it is attached to a country. In a global world, religio-philosophies (both theistic and non-theistic) offer identity-constructs that have the capacity to be global---because these are ideas, they are not attached to any specific geographic location. So while I agree that extremism can be a problem, religio-philosophies also have an interesting potential...at least its worth thinking on.....

                4) citizens belong to a country---but who decided this invisible, arbitrary "border" belonged to them and not others? Does the Earth not belong to all humanity? I am reflecting on this question because of ISIS and the Middle East history (Sykes-Picot)---According to popular narrative, Europeans carved up the lands according to their "whims"...Then comes this crazy group claiming they are going to "unite" everyone into a "Caliphate"....
                http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...he-middle-east

                Who has the right to decide/choose where they live, who they are, and to whom they belong?
                Today the Buddhists of Burma are claiming their fellow brothers who are Muslim are not Burmese and do not belong (therefore have no rights)....so they are being killed....
                In the U.S. there is systemic inequality that creates a "school-to-prison pipeline" that incarcerates large numbers of African-Americans or Peoples of Color---once this happens---it then becomes difficult to vote, get jobs....etc....
                UDHR is based on the idea of nation-state---after all, it was conceived in an era where nation-states "gave" rights...(citizen). Perhaps we need to "progress" to the next step and accept the proposition that rights are not "given"---they are inherent by virtue of being human and so must be reciprocated by each individual towards another, and each group towards another?

                5) According to "Islamic" values, there are some practices that are "not permitted". Dr Jonathan Brown discusses 2 practices of non-Muslims, under Islamic territories, that created moral dilemmas for (pre-Modern) Muslim Jurists
                1) Zoroastrian (religious) practice of immediate family incest 2) Sati,(?) a Hindu (religious) practice where the widow commits suicide....
                The first practice was rare so the dilemma was theoretical, the 2nd was actually practiced---(and Islam does not condone suicide). These practices were allowed to the followers of those religious communities on the basis that this pertained to their ethico-moral value system derived from their religious beliefs. Dr Brown then goes on to compare with Modern court decisions in the U.S. and Europe regarding various moral problems and how they were handled....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by siam View Post
                  1) Agree
                  OK!

                  2) Why? why not respect all (value) differences (within some parameters)?
                  We need to take another look at history?---the settlers of Australia and U.S. did not "integrate" to the culture of the peoples of the land---they forcibly imposed their "values" onto others!...?...Now...they want others to "integrate" to their values.....It is easier to say to others "integrate", when it is your own comfortable value system that others must adapt to....
                  (As a Muslim, my concern is also about Wahabism --- they want Muslims to conform to their version of "Pure" Islam. If I want pluralism within Islam, then I would be a hypocrite if I did not want it for my non-Muslim brothers too?)

                  Australia has made strides---it seems there is a reconciliation week? not sure what its about---but it acknowledges the cultures of the original Australian peoples...?...
                  http://www.reconciliation.org.au/nrw/what-is-nrw/
                  Nevertheless, Public Holidays seem to be very "European"..?....
                  http://www.officeholidays.com/countr...alia/index.php
                  Sadly what happened in Australia and the US etc dates from a different era. Australia officially apologised to its indigenous peoples recently in parliament. Plus some of their tribal lands have been restored to them. But it's too late to undo much of the damage.

                  The integration to which I was referring (in Australia) applies to the successive waves of immigrants from Greece, Italy and Vietnam and more recently Muslim countries. And similarly in the US and elsewhere! It’s to the mother culture people must integrate. I understand your concern re Wahabism. It would be the same if Christian Reconstructionism ever took hold in Western countries. But no forms of extremist ideology can be tolerated because they are inherently destructive.

                  3) Yes---that is my point. In Muslim-majority countries/countries with a Muslim heritage---the base culture would be Muslim, in countries with a Christian or Buddhist heritage, that would be the "base culture". I don't have any problems with people integrating with the base culture/heritage. This system has worked fine in some instances. But, for now, it is attached to a country. In a global world, religio-philosophies (both theistic and non-theistic) offer identity-constructs that have the capacity to be global---because these are ideas, they are not attached to any specific geographic location. So while I agree that extremism can be a problem, religio-philosophies also have an interesting potential...at least its worth thinking on.....
                  I don’t feel “religio-philosophies” should dominate cultures any more than atheist philosophies should...although they should all be permitted in multi-cultural societies but not to the extent that one overrides the others.

                  4) citizens belong to a country---but who decided this invisible, arbitrary "border" belonged to them and not others? Does the Earth not belong to all humanity? I am reflecting on this question because of ISIS and the Middle East history (Sykes-Picot)---According to popular narrative, Europeans carved up the lands according to their "whims"...Then comes this crazy group claiming they are going to "unite" everyone into a "Caliphate"....
                  http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...he-middle-east
                  This is totalitarianism and this is never acceptable, or constructive, whether political or religious.

                  Who has the right to decide/choose where they live, who they are, and to whom they belong?
                  Today the Buddhists of Burma are claiming their fellow brothers who are Muslim are not Burmese and do not belong (therefore have no rights)....so they are being killed....
                  In the U.S. there is systemic inequality that creates a "school-to-prison pipeline" that incarcerates large numbers of African-Americans or Peoples of Color---once this happens---it then becomes difficult to vote, get jobs....etc....
                  UDHR is based on the idea of nation-state---after all, it was conceived in an era where nation-states "gave" rights...(citizen). Perhaps we need to "progress" to the next step and accept the proposition that rights are not "given"---they are inherent by virtue of being human and so must be reciprocated by each individual towards another, and each group towards another?
                  I totally agree about “systemic inequality”, but this brings us back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t it?

                  5) According to "Islamic" values, there are some practices that are "not permitted". Dr Jonathan Brown discusses 2 practices of non-Muslims, under Islamic territories, that created moral dilemmas for (pre-Modern) Muslim Jurists
                  1) Zoroastrian (religious) practice of immediate family incest 2) Sati,(?) a Hindu (religious) practice where the widow commits suicide....
                  The first practice was rare so the dilemma was theoretical, the 2nd was actually practiced---(and Islam does not condone suicide). These practices were allowed to the followers of those religious communities on the basis that this pertained to their ethico-moral value system derived from their religious beliefs. Dr Brown then goes on to compare with Modern court decisions in the U.S. and Europe regarding various moral problems and how they were handled....
                  Surely the likes of Incest and sati – or polygamy among Mormons etc, etc, etc, cannot be tolerated in a modern society regardless of the imprimatur from any religion.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Surely the likes of Incest and sati – or polygamy among Mormons etc, etc, etc, cannot be tolerated in a modern society regardless of the imprimatur from any religion.
                    Yes---that is my point!!
                    As you noted in a previous post---
                    The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
                    Modern Society is very "Wahabi"---it must remake everyone in its own image....
                    You mentioned previously about integrating to the "base culture"/ the heritage culture---but many of these heritage cultures do not come from a "Christian" heritage paradigm, consequently--their moral framework can be different....So you see---As a modern Australian---you have biases and having others integrate to YOUR standards appears right/correct to you---but may not to the one asked to do the integrating...Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes---what if you came from a culture where polygamy was morally wrong---but then you are asked to integrate to a culture that demands polygamy is right and moral...how would you handle it?

                    So you think ISIS is totalitarian?---then what of a "universal mono-culture"?...the demand that to be considered "civilized" one must adhere to only one set of ethico-moral standards---preferably determined by the powerful West? Would such a scenario be totalitarian too...or would it be ok because the moral standard is familiar and comfortable?

                    If religio-philosophies do not become dominant, then on what basis do we construct our group identities? particularly when "national" identity-constructs may become weaker (or even irrelevant) in a globalized world?
                    (I agree with you that identity-constructs should not override others--but co-exist in mutual respect)

                    ...and...if we want human beings to reciprocate human dignity and mutual respect---they need to "own" these concepts---it cannot be some foreign idea imposed by some anonymous committee from somewhere. One needs to believe in these ideas in order to implement them---and this can only happen if these ideas are articulated from the bottom-up....from the groups themselves.....principles of human dignity, human rights as well as responsibilities, and reciprocal respect must be woven into the meta-narratives/paradigms of the identity-constructs in order for people to be enthusiastic about them....?....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by siam View Post
                      "This is where Islam fails"---Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 CE) has interesting theories on the rise and fall of "civilizations" (or rather, of large social groups). When we consider the old wisdom that "necessity is the mother of invention", then those societies/cultures which are too successful---will inevitably become homogenizing and thus stagnate. This is an interesting way to look at "Modernity" as well---it has been the most successful paradigm that replaced all previous paradigms....?....and so it has "failed" and now we see toxic religio-national "fundamentalism" springing up as push-back?

                      ...But this type of zero-sum exclusivism cannot work in a globalized world....it will create too much chaos and human beings do not adapt to chaos well....we are "wired" to find connections, meanings, and balance...
                      Who may I ask is proposing a "zero-sum exclusivism"? What ever that is?!?!? Please explain.

                      You basically did not respond to the post and the problem of Islam in the modern world. Again . . .

                      This is where Islam fails, because by the evidence it no longer allows an environment that promotes an environment of diversity. In most Islamic countries diversity is not allowed, and to be a Baha'i is illegal and in in some punishable by death. This actually the problem of at least several minority faiths in Islamic countries. The numbers of Christians and Jews are decreasing in most Islamic countries for similar reasons.

                      The Baha'i Faith encourages this environment for diversity.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Who may I ask is proposing a "zero-sum exclusivism"? What ever that is?!?!? Please explain.

                        You basically did not respond to the post and the problem of Islam in the modern world. Again . . .

                        This is where Islam fails, because by the evidence it no longer allows an environment that promotes an environment of diversity. In most Islamic countries diversity is not allowed, and to be a Baha'i is illegal and in in some punishable by death. This actually the problem of at least several minority faiths in Islamic countries. The numbers of Christians and Jews are decreasing in most Islamic countries for similar reasons.

                        The Baha'i Faith encourages this environment for diversity.
                        Human endeavors will be imperfect...that is why we need creative solutions....
                        Bahai is a young faith and has not yet had a territory under its control like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other pre-Modern religio-philosophies.....If, in theory, Australia became a majority Bahai country---how would they deal with diversity---specifically, ethico-moral diversity?

                        With Atheism---we have examples of ex-communist countries and they suppressed all other rival claims...and France is somewhat similar.....they want everyone to conform to the "French way" in dress, speech, behavior, thoughts.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by siam View Post
                          Yes---that is my point!!
                          As you noted in a previous post---
                          The problem is that for many people one person's “right” is another person’s “wrong”...or “sin”.
                          Modern Society is very "Wahabi"---it must remake everyone in its own image....
                          You mentioned previously about integrating to the "base culture"/ the heritage culture---but many of these heritage cultures do not come from a "Christian" heritage paradigm, consequently--their moral framework can be different....So you see---As a modern Australian---you have biases and having others integrate to YOUR standards appears right/correct to you---but may not to the one asked to do the integrating...Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes---what if you came from a culture where polygamy was morally wrong---but then you are asked to integrate to a culture that demands polygamy is right and moral...how would you handle it?
                          Polygamy infringes on the equal rights of women and therefore unacceptable as far as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is concerned. Such things aside, modern secular society leaves room for all belief systems provided that none of them claims rights which are unacceptable to the others.

                          So you think ISIS is totalitarian?---then what of a "universal mono-culture"?...the demand that to be considered "civilized" one must adhere to only one set of ethico-moral standards---preferably determined by the powerful West? Would such a scenario be totalitarian too...or would it be ok because the moral standard is familiar and comfortable?
                          "Universal mono-culture" allows for all belief systems to exist, but none to dominate over the others...as we find in secular Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and NZ etc. ISIS is totalitarianism, so was medieval Christianity so was fascism and Communism. All demand unacceptable conformity to their ideology.

                          If religio-philosophies do not become dominant, then on what basis do we construct our group identities? particularly when "national" identity-constructs may become weaker (or even irrelevant) in a globalized world?
                          Secular humanism is the way to go in a world dominated by conflicting religions, each of which hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive and cause conflicts...even wars.

                          (I agree with you that identity-constructs should not override others--but co-exist in mutual respect)

                          ...and...if we want human beings to reciprocate human dignity and mutual respect---they need to "own" these concepts---it cannot be some foreign idea imposed by some anonymous committee from somewhere. One needs to believe in these ideas in order to implement them---and this can only happen if these ideas are articulated from the bottom-up....from the groups themselves.....principles of human dignity, human rights as well as responsibilities, and reciprocal respect must be woven into the meta-narratives/paradigms of the identity-constructs in order for people to be enthusiastic about them....?....
                          All these enlightened qualities, i.e. the “principles of human dignity, human rights as well as responsibilities, and reciprocal respect” etc are inculcated via our social acculturation when young.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            1) Polygamy infringes on the equal rights of women and therefore unacceptable as far as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is concerned. Such things aside,
                            2)modern secular society leaves room for all belief systems provided that none of them claims rights which are unacceptable to the others.

                            3) "Universal mono-culture" allows for all belief systems to exist, but none to dominate over the others...as we find in secular Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and NZ etc. ISIS is totalitarianism, so was medieval Christianity so was fascism and Communism. All demand unacceptable conformity to their ideology.

                            4)Secular humanism is the way to go in a world dominated by conflicting religions, each of which hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive and cause conflicts...even wars.

                            5 )All these enlightened qualities, i.e. the “principles of human dignity, human rights as well as responsibilities, and reciprocal respect” etc are inculcated via our social acculturation when young.
                            1) Polygyny would not reduce the right to choice of women if the practice depended on the assent/dissent of the wife. In some societies it is the first wife that looks for other wives for her husband....Nevertheless, women's choice is/should be a concern on this issue....
                            This (womens choice) was also an aspect of Sati debates amongst Muslim scholars...to allow Sati clearly is against the morality of Islam...to not allow it would infringe on the right of the woman to follow her religious code. So the judges came up with a compromise---they required that women first talk with a judge to ascertain they were not being coerced and that there were other options available---including financial assistance if she refused....as a last resort---the woman also had the option/choice to change her religion and not be bound by that code....

                            2)none claim rights unacceptable to others?---but it is Modern secular societies that advocate for homosexual marriage which could be considered a right "unacceptable" to others? In fact it was Modern secular societies that found it unacceptable for women to inherit, own property after marriage, conduct bussiness, keep their names upon marriage, the right to education (upto University level) etc...rights guaranteed to women in Islam---but not in the "Western laws" that replaced Sharia upon colonization....

                            3) Universal mono-culture may allow other ethico-moral systems to exist on the fringes---but itdominates all other systems---and its code is arbitrary and utilitarian---For example---the U.S. is enthusiastic about the "geneva convention" and torture when it comes to the treatment of its own "American" soldiers---but does not care a penny for laws, morality, or even decency and honor, when it come to treatment of enemy soldiers.

                            4) "Modernity" has not been really great at preventing wars---the Middle East is just one example---there is hardly any country left standing...before that there were wars in Korea, Vietnam, not to mention the various proxy wars...etc...we might as well retire that excuse from our conversation!....

                            5) Agree---education of the young is very important. Ethics/Morality should be taught---but also reciprocal respect for those who are "different"/ have different ethico-moral systems....?......otherwise how are we going to live together? religio-philosophies (theistic and non-theistic) are not going to go away.......

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by siam View Post
                              1) Polygyny would not reduce the right to choice of women if the practice depended on the assent/dissent of the wife. In some societies it is the first wife that looks for other wives for her husband....Nevertheless, women's choice is/should be a concern on this issue....
                              This (womens choice) was also an aspect of Sati debates amongst Muslim scholars...to allow Sati clearly is against the morality of Islam...to not allow it would infringe on the right of the woman to follow her religious code. So the judges came up with a compromise---they required that women first talk with a judge to ascertain they were not being coerced and that there were other options available---including financial assistance if she refused....as a last resort---the woman also had the option/choice to change her religion and not be bound by that code....
                              Polygamy infringes on the equal rights of a woman, because she does not have an equal right to choose a man or men...or another woman. As for Sati, the social expectations for the widow to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre effectively force her to commit suicide. Again, an infringement of her equal rights!

                              2)none claim rights unacceptable to others?---but it is Modern secular societies that advocate for homosexual marriage which could be considered a right "unacceptable" to others? In fact it was Modern secular societies that found it unacceptable for women to inherit, own property after marriage, conduct bussiness, keep their names upon marriage, the right to education (upto University level) etc...rights guaranteed to women in Islam---but not in the "Western laws" that replaced Sharia upon colonization....
                              Woman seen as “chattels” of their husbands without equal rights dates back to the earliest times in all the Abrahamic religions. As for homosexual marriage it is their right to marry their person of choice and NOT the right of others to discriminate against them.

                              3) Universal mono-culture may allow other ethico-moral systems to exist on the fringes---but itdominates all other systems---and its code is arbitrary and utilitarian---For example---the U.S. is enthusiastic about the "geneva convention" and torture when it comes to the treatment of its own "American" soldiers---but does not care a penny for laws, morality, or even decency and honor, when it come to treatment of enemy soldiers.
                              I agree. But that is the fault of US hypocrisy, not the Geneva Convention.

                              4) "Modernity" has not been really great at preventing wars---the Middle East is just one example---there is hardly any country left standing...before that there were wars in Korea, Vietnam, not to mention the various proxy wars...etc...we might as well retire that excuse from our conversation!....
                              Nothing has been good at preventing wars, period. We are a fractious species. No wonder the advanced aliens keep away.

                              5) Agree---education of the young is very important. Ethics/Morality should be taught---but also reciprocal respect for those who are "different"/ have different ethico-moral systems....?......otherwise how are we going to live together? religio-philosophies (theistic and non-theistic) are not going to go away.......
                              Totally agree.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                Human endeavors will be imperfect...that is why we need creative solutions....
                                Bahai is a young faith and has not yet had a territory under its control like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other pre-Modern religio-philosophies.....If, in theory, Australia became a majority Bahai country---how would they deal with diversity---specifically, ethico-moral diversity?

                                With Atheism---we have examples of ex-communist countries and they suppressed all other rival claims...and France is somewhat similar.....they want everyone to conform to the "French way" in dress, speech, behavior, thoughts.....
                                Baha'i spiritual laws deal directly and specifically with the questions of diversity of beliefs, and separation of religion and state. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not.

                                Governments dominated by Judaism, Christianity and particularly Islam in recent history have actively suppressed and persecuted religious minorities, and that is the issue which you are dodging. Including Atheism does not change the picture,

                                Your challenge of 'being young' is not remotely relevant, because every religion began young. Do you believe Islam could not be considered a valid religion when it was 'young.'

                                We are not talking about imperfect human endeavors, and that is passing the buck. Spiritual leadership and guidance provided by the scripture, history and leadership in the religion is what is lacking in ancient religions including Islam. When almost all Islamic countries persecute, restrict, and marginalize religious minorities you need to address this up front and not dodge the issue. It is a fact that Christians and Jews are being driven out of most Islamic countries in recent history, and the Baha'i Faith is considered illegal in most Islamic countries, and punishable by death in many.

                                I endorse the concept of creative solutions, but this concept by the way is humanist without specific guidance from the scripture of the religion. As an up front principle we have 'The Independent investigation of Truth' in the Baha'i Faith
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-10-2017, 08:59 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X