Racism and sexism

[bhsmte]

Who are you to decide that "when not doing so would lead to harm" should be the standard to determine when it's okay for someone to impose their beliefs on others? You feel harm is important but other people have different standards for when it's okay to impose their beliefs on others.

In your private life, you can discriminate against anyone you choose and for any reason. In public life, such as owning a public accommodating business, in which the owner invites the public in the door, there is a compelling reason the government wants those in those environments to be treated equally.

 

[Go Braves]

The bible says men are the head of the household and in charge of their wives. The bible also says women should be taught to obey their husbands

Well now the Bible says a thing or two about how the husband is to treat his wife, and Lord knows that doesn't include hitting her. Her obedience oughta be dependent on him earning it.

Are you married? Does your wife put up with you 'physically disciplining' her?

 

[Paidiske]

Who are you to decide that "when not doing so would lead to harm" should be the standard to determine when it's okay for someone to impose their beliefs on others? You feel harm is important but other people have different standards for when it's okay to impose their beliefs on others.

Chill, samir, it's the standard I'm proposing and arguing for, and I think it has a clear ethical basis.

In reality, you can impose anything on others that you can convince your government to legislate.

 

[quatona]

I understand that for someone whose ideology had had the privilege of being imposed on others for milleinia, it must be hard to learn that they have lost that exclusive privilege now.

 

[Dave-W]

Very sad you witnessed that but I question whether it was ever legal to intentionally break someone's bones or strike someone hard enough to cause significant brain damage. I certainly don't think society should tolerate that behavior.

My mom ran out of the house and hid at a neighbor's house. They called the police who basically did nothing. They told dad to calm down, took a brief statement and and then left. We moved out the next day. It was only later that mom found out she had sustained a small skull fracture that damaged her pituitary gland and gave her some brain damage. Since then she has had a series of 6 brain surgeries to correct the damage, which ended up giving her more brain damage.

That was 1961.

 

[Dave-W]

I guess if businesses refused you their service for being a Christian, you´d be all up in arms about being persecuted, too.

Inconvenience is NOT "persecution." Being imprisoned or beheaded for your faith is.

 

[quatona]

Inconvenience is NOT "persecution." Being imprisoned or beheaded for your faith is.

Exactly. Tell it to samir.

 

[samir]

Chill, samir, it's the standard I'm proposing and arguing for, and I think it has a clear ethical basis.

Who decides what is ethical? Different cultures have different beliefs so even based on your standard you couldn't oppose honor killings (unless you want to claim your culture is superior) since some would say the dishonor their daughter brought on their family exceeds the value of her life and therefore allowing her to live would be more harmful than killing her.

You've basically proven my point which is everyone believes in imposing their values on others (in some situations - no one wants to in every situation) so in that we all agree. Therefore, when someone objects to others imposing their beliefs on them they are being hypocritical unless they want to argue their beliefs are more important than other people's beliefs.

In reality, you can impose anything on others that you can convince your government to legislate.

I understand how democracy works (the majority trample the freedom of minorities by imposing their beliefs on them). That's why it's illegal for a man to beat his wife in liberal countries but was legal in the past. The issue isn't how democracy works but which laws Christians should support. Since we both support imposing our beliefs on others the only question remaining is whose standard to use.

I believe using Christianity as the standard is preferable to going with whatever is popular at the time. Atheists object they'd face discrimination for not following a religion they don't believe in but the current majority rules standard in democracies results in discrimination against Christians so someone will face discrimination either way. That's why the argument some use favoring popular opinion over Christianity as the standard are invalid.

 

[Paidiske]

Therefore, when someone objects to others imposing their beliefs on them they are being hypocritical unless they want to argue their beliefs are more important than other people's beliefs.

Nope. I still think an objective ethical standard of not doing harm is possible.

Ethics committees decide what's ethical all the time. I've sometimes thought that government legislation should have to pass an ethics committee. After all, if it's good enough for a simple piece of research, it should be good enough for laws which govern the whole community, shouldn't it?

 

[samir]

Nope. I still think an objective ethical standard of not doing harm is possible.

Ethics committees decide what's ethical all the time. I've sometimes thought that government legislation should have to pass an ethics committee. After all, if it's good enough for a simple piece of research, it should be good enough for laws which govern the whole community, shouldn't it?

An ethics committee using your standard in Pakistan might rule that honor killings should be legal or one in Saudi Arabia might rule that homosexuals should be executed yet I'm sure you'd object to both. My point is your objective ethical standard won't work/get the results you desire unless it's based on your cultural and philosophical beliefs so you'd have to believe they are superior to other inferior cultures and beliefs to use it for everyone.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it would be possible to create ethical standards which can be applied across different cultures; a basic human goods approach, for example, which treats human life as a basic human good (amongst others) would probably work well.

But that's not really my point. My point is that the basic principle of "don't impose your beliefs on others unless not doing so allows harm" is very different to "impose your beliefs on others whenever you can get away with it."

 

[samir]

I think it would be possible to create ethical standards which can be applied across different cultures; a basic human goods approach, for example, which treats human life as a basic human good (amongst others) would probably work well.

I agree it's possible to apply a standard across different cultures. The problem is deciding whose cultural beliefs to use. Do you just assume your culture is superior and use that to create a standard to rule over those you consider to have an inferior culture?

But that's not really my point. My point is that the basic principle of "don't impose your beliefs on others unless not doing so allows harm" is very different to "impose your beliefs on others whenever you can get away with it."

I understand. You feel that harm is a sufficient or necessary reason to justify imposing your beliefs on others but others would use a different standard other than harm or disagree about what is harmful but I guess their opinions don't matter.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree it's possible to apply a standard across different cultures. The problem is deciding whose cultural beliefs to use. Do you just assume your culture is superior and use that to create a standard to rule over those you consider to have an inferior culture?

Are you familiar with basic human goods ethics?

I understand. You feel that harm is a sufficient or necessary reason to justify imposing your beliefs on others but others would use a different standard other than harm or disagree about what is harmful but I guess their opinions don't matter.

Of course their opinions matter. But then they can make their case!

 

[samir]

Are you familiar with basic human goods ethics?

No. I assume it implies European culture being superior to the others and thus wouldn't tolerate a culture like Saudi Arabia executing homosexuals so no matter what evidence they offered it wouldn't count as it would violate basic human goods ethics. Am I close?

Of course their opinions matter. But then they can make their case!

Make their case to whom? If the committee is primarily made up of members of your culture then they'll have a harder time convincing anyone. Would you be okay if the ethics committee was made up primarily of fundamentalist Muslims from Middle Eastern countries?

 

[samir]

I think it´s not a good idea to use the word "persecution" that lightly.

The Google dictionary defines persecution as "hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs." Fining a Christian for being a Chistian by refusing to sin in an example of ill-treatment based on religions beliefs so that would qualify as persecution.

I may be wrong, but I guess if businesses refused you their service for being a Christian, you´d be all up in arms about being persecuted, too.

You are 100% wrong. Not only would I not be opposed, I would 100% support the right of those businesses to deny me service because I am a big believer in freedom for everyone (I even believe atheists should have the same protections as Christians and members of other religions people have with religions freedom laws).

Anyway, since you have repeatedly advocated men abusing their wives, our conversation ends here.

I have certainly never advocated that men abuse their wives. As a Christian, I believe men should love their wives which is why I respect men who discipline their wives when they disobey to help make them better women.

 

[Dave-W]

I believe men should love their wives which is why I respect men who discipline their wives when they disobey to help make them better women.

And taking Hebrews 13.17 into account, do you have the same respect for pastors who would physically discipline their congregants "when they disobey to help make them better" Christians?

It is the same thing.

 

[samir]

And taking Hebrews 13.17 into account, do you have the same respect for pastors who would physically discipline their congregants "when they disobey to help make them better" Christians?

Yes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The group of people that were first recognized as being infected with Kuru were infected because of the cultural practice of eating the dead. When they learned that this practice was killing their children, they ceased to eat the dead, recognizing that the preservation of life was worth more than the preservation of that aspect of their culture.

 

[Paidiske]

No. I assume it implies European culture being superior to the others and thus wouldn't tolerate a culture like Saudi Arabia executing homosexuals so no matter what evidence they offered it wouldn't count as it would violate basic human goods ethics. Am I close?

No. Basic human goods ethics is a way of evaluating decisions which says there are certain things which are intrinsically good - life is one, but ethicists of this school can then debate what else should be on that list - and that it is never ethical to act directly against a basic human good.

In the case of your putative Saudi Arabian imam, he would have to argue a) that what he's protecting by executing a homosexual is a basic human good, and then b) show how his proposed way of protecting that thing is ethical (that is, it doesn't act directly against another human good).

Now, I'm not an expert in this - I just had a few lectures along the way - but as I understand it, basic human goods ethics would allow that imam to act to protect whatever-it-is he's protecting, but in order for his actions to be ethical, he'd need to find a way to do that which didn't act directly against life. In other words, he might be able to ethically justify some other action, but probably not execution.

And that makes sense, because many ethical systems would actually struggle to justify the death penalty. It's an ethically fraught activity. But that has nothing to do with European culture or cultural imperialism or whatever.

 

[samir]

No. Basic human goods ethics is a way of evaluating decisions which says there are certain things which are intrinsically good - life is one, but ethicists of this school can then debate what else should be on that list - and that it is never ethical to act directly against a basic human good.

In the case of your putative Saudi Arabian imam, he would have to argue a) that what he's protecting by executing a homosexual is a basic human good, and then b) show how his proposed way of protecting that thing is ethical (that is, it doesn't act directly against another human good).

Now, I'm not an expert in this - I just had a few lectures along the way - but as I understand it, basic human goods ethics would allow that imam to act to protect whatever-it-is he's protecting, but in order for his actions to be ethical, he'd need to find a way to do that which didn't act directly against life. In other words, he might be able to ethically justify some other action, but probably not execution.

And that makes sense, because many ethical systems would actually struggle to justify the death penalty. It's an ethically fraught activity. But that has nothing to do with European culture or cultural imperialism or whatever.

I brought up executing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia because God commanded the Israelites to execute men who engage in sodomy. Your system, just as I suspected, would conclude that God was wrong and that what He commanded was unethical. That's not a system that I as a Christian would feel comfortable using.