Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
No, we should not grant moral indemnity bla bla bla... but is that what we are doing?
The alternative seems to be to grant ourselves moral authority to say "oh sure, you say you want to live by a certain set of religious rules, but you can't, because you really don't mean it, and even though you say you accept it, you don't".
I think most people who live by strict rules set down by some supernatural being are brainwashed, coerced, deprived of dignity and the whole nine yards. I believe they have been duped. But who am I to say to some woman who accepts (and perhaps believes it is ordered by God) to eat at a different table in a restaurant that she can't do it?
I think we'd all be better off without any of the hocus-pocus but, since that ain't going to happen, it just seems unfair to pick on one hocus-pocus-based practice as a threat to our entire way of life while we ignore similar practices that are practiced by paler groups.
|
Good point.
Firstly, I would like to note that none of the Western faiths, from Judaism to Islam, demand such a specific as the demarcation of a section for women or children in restaurants. The process by which these specific demarcations between genders develop, originates from an inherently misogynistic theology. No women would believe it was ordered by God that she sit at a table separate from her husband, she would simply believe that her husband was conferred with the authority to create such a demarcation.
I believe the argument you have invoked is that of cultural relativism, the notion that we cannot judge aspects of a culture on the basis that we cannot, as an outsider, understand the purpose or necessity of such specific traditions or customs. We must recognize that these specifics are morally entrenched, and the process of developing these are vast and complicated. If one were to trace these specifics to their moral foundations, there would, in many cases, be a moral purpose that is largely invariable among cultures. It is the reconstitution of these processes that I propose be amended, for their products (the "specifics") are foundationally similar to our own, and does not require moral impingement for the sake of integrating into a common moral framework (since that framework is already akin to our own).
In this way, we are not imposing ourselves as an imperialistic entity, assimilating the world to our moral framework for the continuation and survival of our culture. Rather, we are attempting to create conditions under which humanity may flourish. And, as this logic presents itself, there is no reason not to accept foreign cultural standards right here in Alberta. Some poster previously identified Alberta as such a desirable location that the world is enviable of our society. That's not the whole truth, and for good reason. We also have conditions that inhibit the flourishing of individuals, and I am positive other cultures are in some/many ways enviable to us. There is a lot that we can learn from others as well.
In this way, our sense of nationalism must be made congruent to this idea that we must strive to analyze and comprehend other cultures (this is a typically Canadian ideal, thankfully). It is not imperialistic, it is necessary to mitigate cultural tension and promote conditions that allow the flourishing of individuals, and society.
This is not nearly as easy a solution as putting into practice our phobias, justifying impingement on emotional and cultural terms. Rather, we must justify such impingement on moral terms,
and be excessive in our justifications, since it would be easy (and it happens quite often) to conflate morality and culture for the attainment of an esoteric cultural goal. When we do this, we often mislead others in our proclamation of pseudo-moral superiority, when really, we unjustifiably exalt our culture while degrading others.