Poll: Do all cultures (and their traditions) deserve respect?

[The Green Bean]

ust to make this really clear to Lefties/libs on this forum:
GreenBean:

Do you believe President Clinton should be stoned to death for his sexual encounters with Ms. Lewinsky?

No. He should be tried according to American laws. Even if Islamic laws existed in America Clinton is not a muslim so he would not be arrested, let alone stoned. But they don't so it really doesn't matter.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
GreenBean:

What do you believe the punishment for homosexuality should be?

Do you believe that viewing online pornography is a sin?

What do you believe the punishment for viewing pornography should be?

I am trying to understand your views on these topics.

Our point of view is that homosexuality is unnatural and potentially harmful to the human race in the long term. Therefore if 4 witnesses are found the punishment (that only an Islamic court has the right to carry out) is very strict. Pornography is a sin but there is no written physical punishment for it that I know of.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If we step outside our own morals and take an amoral position we can view all cultures and traditions as equals, and that has its functions in a clinical, analytical way. However, can we discard morality and still claim something or someone deserves "respect?"

Does anyone give respect without making a moral judgement in the process?

I'm not sure about that. I respect Hitler enough to call him a great man, in the sense that what he accomplished was remarkable (I'm not referring to the genocide). At the same time I am morally opposed to nearly everything he accomplished.

Good point. I also greatly respect him, even as I oppose his actions. Just because you find something abhorrent doesn't mean you can't acknowledge its strengths. Indeed, you can better fight something that you have a healthy respect for.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If we step outside our own morals and take an amoral position we can view all cultures and traditions as equals, and that has its functions in a clinical, analytical way. However, can we discard morality and still claim something or someone deserves "respect?"

Does anyone give respect without making a moral judgement in the process?

I'm not sure about that. I respect Hitler enough to call him a great man, in the sense that what he accomplished was remarkable (I'm not referring to the genocide). At the same time I am morally opposed to nearly everything he accomplished.

So we have levels of respect instead?

I don't think it has to do with levels, as in degrees. I respect Hitler because he did something that is very difficult to do. I'm impressed by what he accomplished, and therefore respect him. Generally things that are impressive merit respect, I believe. If any given culture results in particularly high quality of living I see that as impressive, and therefore deserving of respect. But then my perception of a high quality of living is completely subjective.

So you give Hitler the same level of respect as, say, Gandhi?

 

[heartsurgeon]

Our point of view is that homosexuality is unnatural and potentially harmful to the human race in the long term. Therefore if 4 witnesses are found the punishment (that only an Islamic court has the right to carry out) is very strict.

what punishment do you feel is called for if someone is a homosexual (4 witnesses, and the person even admits they are homosexual)?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here is a Sufi story that has much bearing on the issue, in my opinion:

"It is related that Moses called a humble shepherd a blashphemer, because he heard the poor man offering to comb God's hair, wash His robe, and kiss his hand.

God admonished Moses.... "Thus hast thou driven away a worshipper from the nearest to Me that he could approach."

That was fast, the google bots already archived your post.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I went to google to find the story. I quoted it from Google archives.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I meant it archived your post in this specific thread, within a few hours of you posting it, which I discovered when I searched for the phrase in your post, didn't expect it to do that as quick as it did.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you give Hitler the same level of respect as, say, Gandhi?

No. Ghandi accomplished more than Hitler. Not only was he a major architect of the liberation of India, but he lived a highly ascetic lifestyle. I think that's more impressive than what Hitler did, personally. Hitler was still working with a whole political machine to accomplish his goals, whereas Ghandi was working against (or with, which might be harder) his most basic human instincts and urges.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here is a Sufi story that has much bearing on the issue, in my opinion:

"It is related that Moses called a humble shepherd a blashphemer, because he heard the poor man offering to comb God's hair, wash His robe, and kiss his hand.

God admonished Moses.... "Thus hast thou driven away a worshipper from the nearest to Me that he could approach."

That was fast, the google bots already archived your post.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I went to google to find the story. I quoted it from Google archives.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I meant it archived your post in this specific thread, within a few hours of you posting it, which I discovered when I searched for the phrase in your post, didn't expect it to do that as quick as it did.

Hehe, I thought that is what you meant, actually, but when I went to the link I didn't fine my post there. But I have problems seeing words.

Edit: I still don't see it, but hey...........

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
All cultures and their traditions deserve examination and analysis. Do they all deserve respect, no matter how repugnant? No. Cultural traditions past and present have ranged from human sacrifice to cannibalism to stoning gays and adulterers. Sorry, I can't respect those traditions. I can recognize the right of a culture to practice whatever tradition they feel is legitimate for their purposes. But that doesn't mean I must respect it.

However, if you had grown up in the ancient Aztec culture with its ritual human sacrifice, you would have perceived the world through its eyes, and you might have had trouble making sense of Christianity. Had you grown up in ancient Sparta, you would probably not only think nothing of killing babies that weren't "good enough" to be Spartans, you would wholeheartedly endorse it. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to be completely objective about this subject as we are all shaped by the societies in which we live.

I agree. The most rational answer yet. We simply can not judge another culture until the measures used are accepted by them. In other words, you will have to think like an Aztec to understand the world through their eyes. The problem I see with many people today is that they are narrow minded and base all their judgements on their social norms and teachings.

edit: The OP is being biased by saying "(no matter how misguided, harmful and dangerous)" Something that is misguided dangerous and harmful according to one culture maybe the exact opposite to another. That in itself is so subjective and there is no universal definition of good and bad.

This is an interesting point. I had to take a workplace training on ethics last week. Normally these things are sinfully boring, but my workplace brought in Rush Kidder, a notable author on the subject, and an engaging public speaker. His group, the Institute for Global Ethics, has conducted interviews in countries around the world, and found that, while not everyone agrees on the order, all countries list five major ethical areas as the keys to being an ethical society: responsibility, honesty, respect, fairness and compassion. These come up time and time again, regardless of the structure of the society (everything from individualistic countries like America to pluralistic countries like China).

My point is this: People (especially educated people) like to say that there is no universal definition of good and bad. Research like this would suggest otherwise. At the basis of any code of ethics for any given society (and every society has them), these five principles turn up. That suggests that, regardless of the notion that there is no universal definition of good and bad that applies in all situations, societies and cultures the world over have identified several key principles which define ethics, and can serve as a jumping off point for a universal understanding of good and bad.

I haven't read any works by Rush Kidder, and I don't know about his methodology, so he may be completely full of shit. But some of this stands to reason. One of the examples that gets brought up frequently in these debates is cannibalism. It is wrong to kill people to eat them. But cannibals obviously placed restrictions on who could be killed and eaten. It wasn't total anarchy, people slaughtering their neighbors for fear of being killed themselves. A society with no ethical principles would collapse very quickly, as people destroyed everyone around them to survive.

Maybe cannibalism isn't the best example, as it's not widely practiced any more (one of the inherent problems in eating people is that you will consume your supporters). Take female vaginal mutilation (aka circumcision), a barbaric act where the clitoris is damaged or removed from a young girl so that she will never derive sexual excitement from carnal acts. At face value, there is no redeeming qualities in this act. But take a look at the culture in which it happens. Frequently, it is done in rural Africa, where poverty is widespread, the AIDS rate is the highest in the world, and there is little access to birth control or STD prevention. In this climate, you would want to do everything in your power to prevent young people from having promiscuous sex, because it leads to pregnancies and children you can't afford to feed, or AIDS killing off your breeding population. You can't remove the penis of a male, because that nullifies his ability to breed (and you do want to carry on the tribe). The clitoris is not essential to procreation, but is responsible for the joy women get out of sex, and so removing it will hopefully result in a population that will not start having sex as early, will make it to an age where they can be married before procreating, and by staying monogamous, avoid the spread of HIV.

Now, I don't support female vaginal mutilation anywhere; it is barbaric, and it deprives women of sexual satisfaction, which, let's face it, is damn fine stuff. But the principles of morality/ethics can still be applied. It's doubtful that the village elders are thinking "Wow, we are immoral bastards," as they circumsize newborn girls. But we, in the Western world, probably are thinking that about this act. Moonbeam has said it most succinctly; "anybody who approached this subject with an ounce of impartial mentation will immediately be struck by the fact that regardless of what anyone's culture is, they will be convinced, ineluctably and almost without exception, that it is also the best."

This brings me back to the question posed by the OP. Can we place value judgments on the practics of other cultures? Absolutely. We must be aware of our own bias, instilled by our culture, which will lead us to our own decision about right and wrong (it helps if you are able to look critically at your own culture, ie. the individualistic nature of Western capitalism as practiced in America has placed personal wealth and acquisition above the needs of the society as a collective, to the point where we can walk past homeless people on our way to buy expensive items for ourselves without batting an eye). But we can most certainly use the wealth of knowledge we have to form our own opinions about right and wrong, as long as we are able to back up our response with a logical argument. Only through critique will our cultures continue to adapt, grow and thrive.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you give Hitler the same level of respect as, say, Gandhi?

No. Ghandi accomplished more than Hitler. Not only was he a major architect of the liberation of India, but he lived a highly ascetic lifestyle. I think that's more impressive than what Hitler did, personally. Hitler was still working with a whole political machine to accomplish his goals, whereas Ghandi was working against (or with, which might be harder) his most basic human instincts and urges.

So then there are levels, or degrees of respect. We do have respect 'grading system,' so to speak, and feel some deserve more than others?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you give Hitler the same level of respect as, say, Gandhi?

No. Ghandi accomplished more than Hitler. Not only was he a major architect of the liberation of India, but he lived a highly ascetic lifestyle. I think that's more impressive than what Hitler did, personally. Hitler was still working with a whole political machine to accomplish his goals, whereas Ghandi was working against (or with, which might be harder) his most basic human instincts and urges.

So then there are levels, or degrees of respect. We do have respect 'grading system,' so to speak, and feel some deserve more than others?

When I denied there being degrees of respect, I didn't mean there weren't at all. I meant that the respect I afford someone I find morally repugnant versus the the respect I afford somebody I find morally upstanding are not separated by degrees. It was based on your post:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If we step outside our own morals and take an amoral position we can view all cultures and traditions as equals, and that has its functions in a clinical, analytical way. However, can we discard morality and still claim something or someone deserves "respect?"

Does anyone give respect without making a moral judgement in the process?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Only through critique will our cultures continue to adapt, grow and thrive.

That's the bottom line.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you give Hitler the same level of respect as, say, Gandhi?

No. Ghandi accomplished more than Hitler. Not only was he a major architect of the liberation of India, but he lived a highly ascetic lifestyle. I think that's more impressive than what Hitler did, personally. Hitler was still working with a whole political machine to accomplish his goals, whereas Ghandi was working against (or with, which might be harder) his most basic human instincts and urges.

So then there are levels, or degrees of respect. We do have respect 'grading system,' so to speak, and feel some deserve more than others?

When I denied there being degrees of respect, I didn't mean there weren't at all. I meant that the respect I afford someone I find morally repugnant versus the the respect I afford somebody I find morally upstanding are not separated by degrees. It was based on your post:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If we step outside our own morals and take an amoral position we can view all cultures and traditions as equals, and that has its functions in a clinical, analytical way. However, can we discard morality and still claim something or someone deserves "respect?"

Does anyone give respect without making a moral judgement in the process?

Doesn't your reply pretty much agree with my statement then? Aren't you using morals to make your judgements in the case of Hitler and Gandhi?

Morals may not be the only basis for giving respect, and arguably aren't. But I don't think they can be avoided either unless we chop up that which we are judging into sections for individual judgement.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Doesn't your reply pretty much agree with my statement then? Aren't you using morals to make your judgements in the case of Hitler and Gandhi?

Morals may not be the only basis for giving respect, and arguably aren't. But I don't think they can be avoided either unless we chop up that which we are judging into sections for individual judgement.

No, I wasn't saying I offer respect based on a moral judgment. I was saying that I respect Hitler and Ghandi for their accomplishments regardless of their moral uprightness. Generally even when it seems like I respect somebody for doing something moral, it is not so much because what they did was moral but because they sacrificed their own personal comfort in order to accomplish something, which I find impressive. Whether their goal or accomplishment is moral or immoral is sort of irrelevant.

I think there tends to be a general assumption though that goals which we consider moral usually take more personal sacrifice and discipline in order to accomplish.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Doesn't your reply pretty much agree with my statement then? Aren't you using morals to make your judgements in the case of Hitler and Gandhi?

Morals may not be the only basis for giving respect, and arguably aren't. But I don't think they can be avoided either unless we chop up that which we are judging into sections for individual judgement.

No, I wasn't saying I offer respect based on a moral judgment. I was saying that I respect Hitler and Ghandi for their accomplishments regardless of their moral uprightness. Generally even when it seems like I respect somebody for doing something moral, it is not so much because what they did was moral but because they sacrificed their own personal comfort in order to accomplish something, which I find impressive. Whether their goal or accomplishment is moral or immoral is sort of irrelevant.

I think there tends to be a general assumption though that goals which we consider moral usually take more personal sacrifice and discipline in order to accomplish.

Yet you differentiated between Hitler and Gandhi in the level of respect each gets because you find much of what Hitler did "repugnant." What basis drives your appraisal of repugnance?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You've asked a very interesting question, but I'd like to amplify on it because IMO to provide an answer it must be broken down a bit.

1) What is absolute, objective good and evil?

2) How is that knowledge accessible to human minds with the certainty of being correct


I'll stop there for a moment.
I maintain that outside of a matter of faith these are by nature unanswerable.

If someone can provide proof that my statement is incorrect, please do because no one has yet done so in the history of humanity.


That leaves us with moral relativism. Yes, everything is morally relative. That does not mean I don't believe in right or wrong, but it does mean that what I believe is directly influenced by the society and times I live in. My right and wrong is what was taught to me. It is a BELIEF. Again show me absolutes and how the're written in the "stuff" of spacetime.

Now does that require me to accept everything? No, because I accept what I believe being valid. I have no desire to start thinking that every act of charity should be punished or that people should be murdered.

So we have female circumcision. It's an accepted practice, and in many cultures it's not the men, but the women who drive it. Odd, but true. Do I have to accept and respect it? No, because my culture tells me it's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Is there an ABSOLUTE standard that says I am right and they are wrong? No, unless there is a Creator who sets the standard. That would bring up the question of what makes Him right.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So we have female circumcision. It's an accepted practice, and in many cultures it's not the men, but the women who drive it. Odd, but true. Do I have to accept and respect it? No, because my culture tells me it's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Much of the practice is said to be genital mutilation. Not just a ?snip? of skin like males receive and who are still 100% healthy/functional afterwards. I would not condone mutilation no matter how many people told me it?s a good thing.

Is this relative to how I was raised? Yes, but that doesn?t change that I should uphold the belief against mutilation and condemn the practice.

Is there an ABSOLUTE standard that says I am right and they are wrong? No, unless there is a Creator who sets the standard. That would bring up the question of what makes Him right.

There IS an absolute standard.

What if it was my cultural practice that Hayabusa Rider should be mutilated? That is WRONG. Why? Human rights.

You should be secure from harm, and that should be absolute and universal. Am I wrong?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So we have female circumcision. It's an accepted practice, and in many cultures it's not the men, but the women who drive it. Odd, but true. Do I have to accept and respect it? No, because my culture tells me it's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Much of the practice is said to be genital mutilation. Not just a ?snip? of skin like males receive and who are still 100% healthy/functional afterwards. I would not condone mutilation no matter how many people told me it?s a good thing.

Is this relative to how I was raised? Yes, but that doesn?t change that I should uphold the belief against mutilation and condemn the practice.

Is there an ABSOLUTE standard that says I am right and they are wrong? No, unless there is a Creator who sets the standard. That would bring up the question of what makes Him right.

There IS an absolute standard.

What if it was my cultural practice that Hayabusa Rider should be mutilated? That is WRONG. Why? Human rights.

You should be secure from harm, and that should be absolute and universal. Am I wrong?

Topic Title: Poll: Do all cultures (and their traditions) deserve respect?
Topic Summary: Phrased different, is the idea of "civilization" a relative or absolute concept?

No, everyone deserves hate and discrimination like Americans hate gays.

 

[StageLeft]

Of course not. Only a complete moron, also unappreciative of his ability to even respond to this thread, would agree with the statement. Many societies are deplorable and terrible. They are rife with ignorance, oppression, lack of safety, health, etc.

 

[manowar821]

This has been said already, but respect is earned, it's not unconditional.

If the culture is damaging and harmful to people or the environment, why should it demand respect?

 

[Moonbeam]

A Sufi teacher who happened to be carrying a rope and walking along with an regular person was approached from the distance by a Dervish, who, seeing the two walking along, pointed at the sky, 'there is one truth and it covers us all'. Holding up the rope, the Sufi continued the conversation, 'and ordinary humanity tries to reach it by means as absurd as climbing into the sky with a rope'. The companion said to himself, this Dervish is mad, but good, if he tries anything funny we will tie him up.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
GreenBean:

What do you believe the punishment for homosexuality should be?

Do you believe that viewing online pornography is a sin?

What do you believe the punishment for viewing pornography should be?

I am trying to understand your views on these topics.

Our point of view is that homosexuality is unnatural and potentially harmful to the human race in the long term. Therefore if 4 witnesses are found the punishment (that only an Islamic court has the right to carry out) is very strict. Pornography is a sin but there is no written physical punishment for it that I know of.

If you are not a Muslim can you/will you still be tried in an Islamic court?

Does the state or government court supersede the Islamic court?

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Racism has simply not been a part of any major religion.

Culture and religion are often closely related but they are separate entities. At one point in time slavery was acceptable in the United States because it was socially accepted that black people where inferior beings. That was a part of their culture.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
As far as stoning for death, you would need a broader mind to understand the philosophy behind it. If you refuse it just "because 'they' told you" your point of views hold no value.

Please enlighten me on the philosophy of burying a person up to their neck so that only their head is exposed and then stoning them with rocks that are not so small as to not cause injury but not big enough to kill in the first few blows.

Why shouldn't I view that practice as something that is purely barbaric and should have no place in the modern world?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So we have female circumcision. It's an accepted practice, and in many cultures it's not the men, but the women who drive it. Odd, but true. Do I have to accept and respect it? No, because my culture tells me it's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Much of the practice is said to be genital mutilation. Not just a ?snip? of skin like males receive and who are still 100% healthy/functional afterwards. I would not condone mutilation no matter how many people told me it?s a good thing.

Is this relative to how I was raised? Yes, but that doesn?t change that I should uphold the belief against mutilation and condemn the practice.

Is there an ABSOLUTE standard that says I am right and they are wrong? No, unless there is a Creator who sets the standard. That would bring up the question of what makes Him right.

There IS an absolute standard.

What if it was my cultural practice that Hayabusa Rider should be mutilated? That is WRONG. Why? Human rights.

You should be secure from harm, and that should be absolute and universal. Am I wrong?

You seem to miss the point. You and I believe many things are wrong. Now prove that in the fabric of the universe, there is a universal compass that points to right and wrong. That would be absolute. Your absolute is because you say it is. Does that make it illegitimate? No, but all the while I can be outraged by something I know to be my strong opinion. Am I obliged to respect cultures that harm others? No, not at all.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yet you differentiated between Hitler and Gandhi in the level of respect each gets because you find much of what Hitler did "repugnant." What basis drives your appraisal of repugnance?

I didn't differentiate because I found what Hitler did "repugnant". I merely said I found what Hitler did repugnant.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You've asked a very interesting question, but I'd like to amplify on it because IMO to provide an answer it must be broken down a bit.

1) What is absolute, objective good and evil?

2) How is that knowledge accessible to human minds with the certainty of being correct


I'll stop there for a moment.
I maintain that outside of a matter of faith these are by nature unanswerable.

If someone can provide proof that my statement is incorrect, please do because no one has yet done so in the history of humanity.


That leaves us with moral relativism. Yes, everything is morally relative. That does not mean I don't believe in right or wrong, but it does mean that what I believe is directly influenced by the society and times I live in. My right and wrong is what was taught to me. It is a BELIEF. Again show me absolutes and how the're written in the "stuff" of spacetime.

Now does that require me to accept everything? No, because I accept what I believe being valid. I have no desire to start thinking that every act of charity should be punished or that people should be murdered.

So we have female circumcision. It's an accepted practice, and in many cultures it's not the men, but the women who drive it. Odd, but true. Do I have to accept and respect it? No, because my culture tells me it's wrong. I think it's wrong.

Is there an ABSOLUTE standard that says I am right and they are wrong? No, unless there is a Creator who sets the standard. That would bring up the question of what makes Him right.

Hurray, it only took about 100 replies for someone to address the real issue. It's a new P&N record! 😛 Facetiousness aside, I believe I can put forth an argument against your statement that those questions are unanswerable.

Simply stated, an objective good and evil exists in nature. This is demonstrable through an examination of how human societies have evolved over thousands of years.

One man alone stands a small chance of survival in the hard, cold world.

Two men together instantly nearly double their chances of survival because they can now pool their skills for that purpose.

Ten men. Fifty. One hundred. One thousand. As the grouping grows and the pool of skills gets deeper, we increase the chance of this group's survival astronomically - but now we also introduce the issue of interpersonal conflict. Not everyone will always get along.

So what do we do? We set up rules for the group to live by. No killing each other (decimates the talent pool). No stealing (introduces chaos leading to violence which can maim/kill talent). As we start relying less on brute physical strength to keep the group alive, the equality of women naturally surfaces - putting that 51% of the population to work is an obvious way to add to the talent pool at no cost. Same with the equality of races: As each race has intelligent people, don't artificially limit the group from harnessing those minds by assigning all people of skin colour X to menial labour. Each rule found in the UN charter coincides with this logical goal.

"Good" are the things that propagate the survival of the group. "Evil" is the opposite, that which harms the group's chances. No need for religion or abstract ideas to enter into the equation.

Does female circumcision help the propagation of that group which encourages the practice? Making sex unpleasurable would seem to be the opposite of the natural goals of the species.

There's a couple of straw men that people can put up here to pretend an argument against what I've stated. One way is to say that as human beings we are concerned with more than mere survival. This is actually quite contradictory to the argument: What we're trying to do is establish the bedrock of good rule-making. Keeping some people alive to have the argument in the first place is the most basic rule I can imagine.

The second straw man is to throw forward a practice such as some form of fascism as a societal model that would best for the stated goal by, say, keeping the smartest amongst us working hard 24/7 for the sake of the species. This contradicts human nature and thus also rules itself out, as humanity has clearly shown that this type of government encourages chaos, not order.