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

[The Green Bean]

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?

On a lower level the same as the reason for the death penalty. You need not commit adultery when you already have a wife/husband and your sexual needs are being met. If they are not, there are other ways of dealing with it; like taking it to court. Adultery is considered as one of the worst sins in Islam - The punishment is to serve as a warning to others. If murder was legal how many people would die in America daily? Adultery would become as rare as murder or rarer considering the severity of the punishment. There are many reasons as to why adultery is considered a sin; perhaps a book on the philosophy of Islamic law will explain better.

Also, large stones are used to kill in the first few blows.

Something else now: Do you consider the murder of a few innocents to save many acceptable? Do consider that you family members may be also be killed. I consider it barbaric. This is a far more pressing issue today given the current political circumstances.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
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?

Outside public crime (murder etc) a non muslim will be tried according to his own laws. The Islamic court IS the state court.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Bean, is the punishment for homosexuality the same as adultery?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think that's a pretty good summation of the issue. As you say, "Good" are the things that propagate the survival of the group. As I say, that which promotes and advances human life is the "Good."

I think a good argument could be made -and indeed as been- that certain Rights or universals necessarily exists in all human beings as a requirement or consequence of this Ethical Theory on the "Good." But you basically said as much... so cheers!

 

[heartsurgeon]

Also, large stones are used to kill in the first few blows.

yes, that is very thoughtful...

are homosexuals treated this thoughtfully, or do they only deserve the small stones?

Your culture is barbaric, your culture is inferior, i have no respect for a culture that kills its own by stoning (no matter how thoughtfully it is done), for ANY crime, much less non-violent crimes.

Do you believe Bin Laden is a hero?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

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?

On a lower level the same as the reason for the death penalty. You need not commit adultery when you already have a wife/husband and your sexual needs are being met. If they are not, there are other ways of dealing with it; like taking it to court. Adultery is considered as one of the worst sins in Islam - The punishment is to serve as a warning to others. If murder was legal how many people would die in America daily? Adultery would become as rare as murder or rarer considering the severity of the punishment. There are many reasons as to why adultery is considered a sin; perhaps a book on the philosophy of Islamic law will explain better.

Also, large stones are used to kill in the first few blows.

Something else now: Do you consider the murder of a few innocents to save many acceptable? Do consider that you family members may be also be killed. I consider it barbaric. This is a far more pressing issue today given the current political circumstances.

As liberal as I am, I really need to ask you a question:

Are men punished like women for the crime of adultery? What are the percentages? What does a rape victim usually end being charged with?

I know already the answers, so please be sincere.

 

[Moonbeam]

HU HU HU, I see the chimps have taken to the trees and are breaking and throwing branches.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Also, large stones are used to kill in the first few blows.

yes, that is very thoughtful...

are homosexuals treated this thoughtfully, or do they only deserve the small stones?

Your culture is barbaric, your culture is inferior, i have no respect for a culture that kills its own by stoning (no matter how thoughtfully it is done), for ANY crime, much less non-violent crimes.

Do you believe Bin Laden is a hero?

Bin Laden is a criminal. You culture is the one that is barbaric and inferior. It really doesn't matter what you or the rest of the world thinks. 300 million wrong answers does not make it right.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Bin Laden is a criminal.

then why don't the good citizens of your enlighten superior country capture and punish him?

 

[manowar821]

I'm going to be bold and say that calling homosexuality a crime is a crime itself. What a pig-headed view on life.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Bin Laden is a criminal.

then why don't the good citizens of your enlighten superior country capture and punish him?

Because the Americans couldn't find him in 5 years and blamed their failures on Pakistan. OBL maybe a criminal but we rather not waste our resources on him even if was proven to be on our lands. We have bigger threats to worry about; like India and the USA. Blame the American military, they're the ones who let Osama escape.

 

[jonks]

Well I hope the P&N conservatives check the poll results of this thread out.

I don't see this as a tough question though. If it was some cultural group's practice to torture to death every third daughter born to a couple to please the god of the East, I don't see how that deserves respect. All people are citizens of humanity and of earth, and now that mankind has the ability to traverse the globe at will, ignoring suffering imposed on the helpless out of a misguided sense of cultural deference is cowardly.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Also, large stones are used to kill in the first few blows.

yes, that is very thoughtful...

are homosexuals treated this thoughtfully, or do they only deserve the small stones?

Your culture is barbaric, your culture is inferior, i have no respect for a culture that kills its own by stoning (no matter how thoughtfully it is done), for ANY crime, much less non-violent crimes.

Do you believe Bin Laden is a hero?

This is the only thing I think I've seen heartsurgeon post that I agree with. I can sit in my ivory tower and use my liberal ideals to spin Islamic punishments as a product of a misunderstood culture or what have you... But at the end of the day, anyone who supports violently murdering or torturing another human being based on something as inoffensive as sexual orientation (I don't give a shit if you find it morally repugnant; homosexuality has no detrimental effect on you or anyone else)... That's a practice that I find barbaric. Your culture, and worse, you yourself (The Green Bean), seems to endorse this barbarism; ergo, your culture is barbaric.

 

[Sunner]

I usually don't post in P&N, but since I saw this thread, I just had mention something I read today...

Sweden is having a bit of a mini-repeat of the Muhammed-picture thing that Denmark got into a while back, and once again muslims all around are pissed off.
And, speaking of respect and such, a bunch of ambassadors(including the Pakistani one) will hand over a list of demands to the Swedish prime minister come Friday.
Including changes to our constitution and educational system, to protect these foreign countries from being offended.
Not suggestions or any such, but demands.

I can kinda understand the complaints from muslims living in Sweden, they're citizens here, they enjoy the same rights as every other citizen, no matter what color, religion, political views, and so forth, including the right to peaceful protests, writing angry letters, etc.
But when foreign governments start demanding that we change our constitution to fit their state religion...somehow it doesn't seem like they're paying OUR culture much respect, when they could just not read our papers and such instead.

Green Bean, seeing as you seem like a rather reasonable person, what do you think about that?
The specific matter of Pakistan(and a bunch of other countries, just singling out Pakistan since that's where you're from) demanding changes to Swedish laws to appease the Pakistani people.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
(I don't give a shit if you find it morally repugnant; homosexuality has no detrimental effect on you or anyone else)

I beg to differ. Homosexuality will cause the destruction of the human race if left unchecked. There is no point of me posting in PnN because most here are narrow minded barbarians. You can still PM me if you wish to ask anything.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: 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.

I think that's a pretty good summation of the issue. As you say, "Good" are the things that propagate the survival of the group. As I say, that which promotes and advances human life is the "Good."

I think a good argument could be made -and indeed as been- that certain Rights or universals necessarily exists in all human beings as a requirement or consequence of this Ethical Theory on the "Good." But you basically said as much... so cheers!

I think you both missed Hayabusa's point; unless you subscribe to religion (which requires blind faith, so it really stands apart from the scientific method), you cannot say that there is universal "good." The ideas of universal good are just that: ideas. It is stuff that humans thought up to live better as a group and survive. Does this universal good apply to all life, from the largest mammals to the smallest bacteria? Are the millions of species that we know about all bound to this same universal good? If not, then it's not really "universal" is it? I know humans like to think that we are the center of the universe (an idea born from ego more than anything else), but the rules that we have created for ourselves can never be called "universal" unless we actually had some sway on controlling life on a "universal" scale. We don't. Ergo, there is no universal "good."

Now if you believe in any of the major religions, they will say that there is a universal good, often bestowed or mandated by a creator or metaphysical spiritual being. This doesn't require proof so much as faith; you have to believe that this being exists. This being will not make him or herself known to you; there is no test to prove or disprove his/her existence. You can believe in a universal "good" in this sense, because to disprove it, one would have to disprove the existence of this metaphysical being, which is, by scientific standards, impossible.

But for the sake of this discussion, try to imagine a universe without God. There is no longer an acceptance of universal "good" on faith, only on what we can empirically see. We see animals attack and kill each other over territory, orcas playing catch with a seal carcass, dolphins gang raping each other, bacteria killing creatures the world over, plants poisoning the birds that feed on them, spiders torturing insects and feeding on them while they're still alive... And we see all these behaviors mirrored in humans performing the most despicable acts of violence against each other. Empirically, there is an abundance of evidence which suggests that, though good exists, it can hardly be deemed universal.

I don't know what the phrase universal "good" means to you, but for all practical purposes, it is not reflected in what we can see in the world around us. If this universal "good" doesn't even apply to us, the species that coined the phrase, perhaps it doesn't actually exist. If it needs to be taken on blind faith, then you turn the discussion into a religious one, which tries to effectively circumvent science by saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist (note the inherent logical fallacy in trying to prove the nonexistence of something)." But looking at the broad scope of nature, the world, even the universe, we can see that the idea of a universal "good" is not something reflected in reality. It is a pipe dream, a happy ideal in which we can make bold proclamations like "murder is wrong," and have it apply to everything, everywhere at all times. It's a nice fantasy, but at the end of the day, it simply doesn't hold up.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
(I don't give a shit if you find it morally repugnant; homosexuality has no detrimental effect on you or anyone else)

I beg to differ. Homosexuality will cause the destruction of the human race if left unchecked. There is no point of me posting in PnN because most here are narrow minded barbarians. You can still PM me if you wish to ask anything.

Are you serious? Are you frickin serious?! You're calling gay rights supporters, barbarians?

What the sam hell is this, opposite day? Thanks, I rolled my eyes so hard I got a headache.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
(I don't give a shit if you find it morally repugnant; homosexuality has no detrimental effect on you or anyone else)

I beg to differ. Homosexuality will cause the destruction of the human race if left unchecked. There is no point of me posting in PnN because most here are narrow minded barbarians. You can still PM me if you wish to ask anything.

Are you serious? Are you frickin serious?! You're calling gay rights supporters, barbarians?

What the sam hell is this, opposite day? Thanks, I rolled my eyes so hard I got a headache.

Barbarians was good, but I think the best line was "narrow minded." Liberal ideas like acceptance are apparently "narrow minded" now. Why wasn't I informed?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I think you both missed Hayabusa's point; unless you subscribe to religion (which requires blind faith, so it really stands apart from the scientific method), you cannot say that there is universal "good." The ideas of universal good are just that: ideas. It is stuff that humans thought up to live better as a group and survive. Does this universal good apply to all life, from the largest mammals to the smallest bacteria? Are the millions of species that we know about all bound to this same universal good? If not, then it's not really "universal" is it? I know humans like to think that we are the center of the universe (an idea born from ego more than anything else), but the rules that we have created for ourselves can never be called "universal" unless we actually had some sway on controlling life on a "universal" scale. We don't. Ergo, there is no universal "good."

Now if you believe in any of the major religions, they will say that there is a universal good, often bestowed or mandated by a creator or metaphysical spiritual being. This doesn't require proof so much as faith; you have to believe that this being exists. This being will not make him or herself known to you; there is no test to prove or disprove his/her existence. You can believe in a universal "good" in this sense, because to disprove it, one would have to disprove the existence of this metaphysical being, which is, by scientific standards, impossible.

But for the sake of this discussion, try to imagine a universe without God. There is no longer an acceptance of universal "good" on faith, only on what we can empirically see. We see animals attack and kill each other over territory, orcas playing catch with a seal carcass, dolphins gang raping each other, bacteria killing creatures the world over, plants poisoning the birds that feed on them, spiders torturing insects and feeding on them while they're still alive... And we see all these behaviors mirrored in humans performing the most despicable acts of violence against each other. Empirically, there is an abundance of evidence which suggests that, though good exists, it can hardly be deemed universal.

I don't know what the phrase universal "good" means to you, but for all practical purposes, it is not reflected in what we can see in the world around us. If this universal "good" doesn't even apply to us, the species that coined the phrase, perhaps it doesn't actually exist. If it needs to be taken on blind faith, then you turn the discussion into a religious one, which tries to effectively circumvent science by saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist (note the inherent logical fallacy in trying to prove the nonexistence of something)." But looking at the broad scope of nature, the world, even the universe, we can see that the idea of a universal "good" is not something reflected in reality. It is a pipe dream, a happy ideal in which we can make bold proclamations like "murder is wrong," and have it apply to everything, everywhere at all times. It's a nice fantasy, but at the end of the day, it simply doesn't hold up.

I don't think so at all. Morality doesn't rest on an idea of a God, it rests on the idea of Man. Man is real... we are part of reality. Morality is a term we use to describe a concept, just like "gravity" is used to describe a concept. Is morality any less real than gravity?

The point is, just because something isn't a hard science doesn't mean there can't be generally accepted theories, truths, or universals. Whether it's astronomy or politics, we can get closer to reality by using logic, reason, and best possible evidence.

yllus gave an example that I basically agree with. I believe his version of the good comes about as close to reality, or a universal, as we can go based on our current level of human advancement. How can anyone argue with the idea that human survival, or more specifically human progress, is not good? Just because someone says it's not? Is that what we're supposed to base our philosophic understanding on Man on... the idea that any thought or opinion negates reality just because it's a different thought or opinion?

 

[heartsurgeon]

OBL maybe a criminal but we rather not waste our resources on him even if was proven to be on our lands.

Homosexuality will cause the destruction of the human race if left unchecked.

There is no point of me posting in PnN because most here are narrow minded barbarians

This Pakistani is typical. Do not think this dude is an abberation. I have met many highly educated Pakistani's, and the stuff they say when they "let their guard down" is jaw-dropping.

GreenBean manages to make me look like a uber-liberal.

This is the enemy my leftie/liberal/moral relativistic crowd...he is a islamic fundamentalist, and he wants adulterers and homosexuals stoned to death (big stones for adulterers, little stone for gays, cuz they're so bad). He secretly admires Bin Laden, he hates Jews, he thinks the 9/11 thing was a jew/cia plot. These folks do not have their heads screwed on straight, and your not gonna change his mind about anything...because we are barbarians, and we are inferior.....

and you think we can "negotiate" or reason with people more radical than him?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon


Your culture is barbaric, your culture is inferior, i have no respect for a culture that kills its own by stoning (no matter how thoughtfully it is done), for ANY crime, much less non-violent crimes.

Cause in America, we do it with a nice clean needle, or chair, or rope

According to Amnesty International, during 2005 at least 2,148 people were executed in 22 countries, 94% in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United States alone. More than 5,186 people were sentenced to death in 53 countries. More than 20,000 prisoners are on death row across the world.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Would it be fair then, for the civilized countries/cultures to say that the US is the most barbaric, inferior culture in the West?

 

[heartsurgeon]

hmm...in the study YOU link to

288 executions in the U.S. over 22 years....about 13 executions/year over the time period reported on.

i don't have a problem with capital punishment for crimes involving taking another person's life. You may disagree with me, and that's o.k.

trying to make some moral equivalence out of executing a murderer (carried out by presumably dispassionate employees of the justice system, under the supervision of the courts)...is just a little different from having the mob stone someone to death for adultery or homosexually.

If the Europeans or other countries that have outlawed execution, want to question my morality, I would take their criticism under consideration, but i wouldn't necessarily agree with it. Sure, they have a moral position that gives their criticism's legitimacy. The dude from Pakistan has no legitimacy in this matter.

Are you defending the Pak?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon


i don't have a problem with capital punishment for crimes involving taking another person's life.

Wiki

Furthermore, as expressed in the Qur'an, capital punishment is condoned. Although the Qur'an prescribes the death penalty for several hadd (fixed) crimes?including robbery, adultery, and apostasy of Islam?murder is not among them. Instead, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (wergild) as compensation

I'll bet that gisas law don't sound too bad either?

Are you defending the Pak?

I think The Green Bean is doing fine

 

[heartsurgeon]

I think The Green Bean is doing fine

You make a great team.

 

[Moonbeam]

The thing I like about Saudi Arabia, where they cut off your hand for theft, is the recidivism rate goes way down after the second offense. They say you can leave your wallet in the street and get it the next day.