Multiculturalism and "right and wrong"

[JerrySeinfeld]

No, because as M Hardner has pointed out "good" and "bad" are subjective attributes.

I believe that this "Moral Relativism" is one of the fundamental problems with Progressive Left Wing thought.

While there is some wiggle room here, I believe most left wing progressives, and as a result our media and society in general have taken this concept too far - to the point where we lack accountability - everything is "ok" as it were.

No. Because unless that "bad" behaviour is infringing on someone's rights society should not be encouraging or discouraging people's behaviour.

Can we apply this to environmentalism, smoking, seatbelts, political corrcetness, freedom of speech, racism, bigotry, etc....PLEASE?

[Michael Hardner]

JS,

I believe that this "Moral Relativism" is one of the fundamental problems with Progressive Left Wing thought.

While there is some wiggle room here, I believe most left wing progressives, and as a result our media and society in general have taken this concept too far - to the point where we lack accountability - everything is "ok" as it were.

You're wrong. Moral Relativism means the discounting of immoral acts.

There are no immoral peoples. Peoples have attributes, sure, but not moralities.

[JerrySeinfeld]

JS,

You're wrong. Moral Relativism means the discounting of immoral acts.

There are no immoral peoples. Peoples have attributes, sure, but not moralities.

OK let's explore this.

Is beating your wife:

1. Wrong

2. Right

3. Subjective

[Oleg Bach]

OK let's explore this.

Is beating your wife:

1. Wrong

2. Right

3. Subjective

If she is bigger than you and a man living in a womans body - well maybe a quick kick and run is appropriate...because if she caught you she may just stab you to death out of jealousy for you having a more female side than her. Seriously - this carrot on the stick "is beating your wife" - should read - is assaulting a human being right or wrong or subjective - the question reeks of sexism. There are woman that are extremely abusive and destroy some males...in fact on the distaff sides of some families the woman have a trail of dead husbands - that were driven into the ground by line backer wives...and it's a family tradition to ride the male work horse into the ground then scream abuse. - so I say subjective - maybe what would be more civil than beating a woman possessed by evil would be to have a new law drawn up where hags are jailed...say five years for filing a conspiratroial false police report.

[Michael Hardner]

To save time, I'll just answer "wrong".

Next point ?

[Renegade]

I believe that this "Moral Relativism" is one of the fundamental problems with Progressive Left Wing thought.

While there is some wiggle room here, I believe most left wing progressives, and as a result our media and society in general have taken this concept too far - to the point where we lack accountability - everything is "ok" as it were.

No, everything is not "ok". Behaviour which is not OK is that which infringes someone elses individual rights. That is different that "good" or "bad" which is a subjective determination.

Can we apply this to environmentalism, smoking, seatbelts, political corrcetness, freedom of speech, racism, bigotry, etc....PLEASE?

Absolutely we can, but are you sure you want to divert this thread into the "correctness" of each of those issues?

[Renegade]

OK let's explore this.

Is beating your wife:

1. Wrong

2. Right

3. Subjective

Impossible to say because there is no detail on the circumstance. What if I assulted her while trying to disarm her because she came at me with a knife. What if the beating was part of our S&M ritual.

[JB Globe]

Well, if we can be honest about positive aspects of a particular culture, why can't we be honest about the negative ones? We do it about ourselves all the time. In Canada we constantly see marches and protests criticizing this or that government policy of societal condition.

Now stay with me here, my question is this:

If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time?

Are we so obsessed with race and culture that we can't be honest with eachother about our faults?

I agree with this statement, however the problem is that many times that people who believe they're making honest arguments aren't actually doing so.

They forget that in order to be honest with others you first have to be honest with yourself, and key to that is being honest with yourself about what you know and don't know about an issue, ANY issue really, but in this case we're talking about Multiculturalism so let's use the example of a "problem within an ethnic community"

What you end up with is folks who may have no real knowledge of a community criticizing it. Folks who may have never even had a conversation with someone from that community, folks who may know someone from that community but never bothered to learned anything about it because they take the "out of sight, out of mind" approach to multiculturalism (ie - so long as it doesn't directly affect me, I don't want anything to do with it).

In the same way as my Big Smoke-self can't read an article on Red Deer every once and a while and when an issue happens there, expect my opinion to be as valid as someone who has lived their whole life there - same applies to someone from Red Deer who offers up their uninformed opinion on an issue within an ethnic community in Toronto. Because that opinion isn't formed from actual learned or lived, knowledge, but rather from stereotypes and assumptions born out of a lack of knowledge.

That's why I get frustrated with much of the commentary on Multiculturalism in the country because a lot of it comes from people who don't actually have any true lived experience with it, because many people in this country still live a monocultural existence (and this can happen in small rural towns, or even Toronto - if you live in certain areas and make certain choices in terms of your lifestyle, ie - never getting outside your comfort zone).

To recap - before you make an honest arguement about a subject, be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know. Example - don't generalize the entire Muslim community if you've never even had a single serious discussion about Islam with someone who is Muslim. And really - I talk about that issue on a regular basis, and I would still not even think of making sweeping generalizations.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree with this statement, however the problem is that many times that people who believe they're making honest arguments aren't actually doing so.

They forget that in order to be honest with others you first have to be honest with yourself, and key to that is being honest with yourself about what you know and don't know about an issue, ANY issue really, but in this case we're talking about Multiculturalism so let's use the example of a "problem within an ethnic community"

What you end up with is folks who may have no real knowledge of a community criticizing it. Folks who may have never even had a conversation with someone from that community, folks who may know someone from that community but never bothered to learned anything about it because they take the "out of sight, out of mind" approach to multiculturalism (ie - so long as it doesn't directly affect me, I don't want anything to do with it).

In the same way as my Big Smoke-self can't read an article on Red Deer every once and a while and when an issue happens there, expect my opinion to be as valid as someone who has lived their whole life there - same applies to someone from Red Deer who offers up their uninformed opinion on an issue within an ethnic community in Toronto. Because that opinion isn't formed from actual learned or lived, knowledge, but rather from stereotypes and assumptions born out of a lack of knowledge.

That's why I get frustrated with much of the commentary on Multiculturalism in the country because a lot of it comes from people who don't actually have any true lived experience with it, because many people in this country still live a monocultural existence (and this can happen in small rural towns, or even Toronto - if you live in certain areas and make certain choices in terms of your lifestyle, ie - never getting outside your comfort zone).

To recap - before you make an honest arguement about a subject, be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know. Example - don't generalize the entire Muslim community if you've never even had a single serious discussion about Islam with someone who is Muslim. And really - I talk about that issue on a regular basis, and I would still not even think of making sweeping generalizations.

Humans are humans - I like them! Don't need the state to force me to make friends - it's the founders of muti-culturalism that may have had racist feelings - why would they come up with such a silly thing? As children we do not discriminate - and as careing mature loving adults we are fine with all people of good quality - time to drop the experiment - and stop interfering with natural human interaction - it's akin the promotion of homosexuality in our young - which is sexual interference disguised..leave the kids alone and the adults - all strong culture worth it's salt will survive on it's own - multi-culturalism is pandering -who needs that?

[JerrySeinfeld]

To recap - before you make an honest arguement about a subject, be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know. Example - don't generalize the entire Muslim community if you've never even had a single serious discussion about Islam with someone who is Muslim. And really - I talk about that issue on a regular basis, and I would still not even think of making sweeping generalizations.

I have an ongoing debate with a family member who converted to Islam. And believe me. The more we talk, the more he galvinizes my opinions.

[JB Globe]

I have an ongoing debate with a family member who converted to Islam. And believe me. The more we talk, the more he galvinizes my opinions.

Of course, it depends why this person converted, because the way they practice is totally related to those reasons. That goes for any religion, really.

I grew up knowing Islam through my friends, one of which, my best friend, taught me the most about it. His family was always good to me, and I'm going to be a guest of honour at his sister's wedding. The way he practices and is able to reconcile his religion and modern is great - he sweats the big stuff (family, friends, compassion, social justice) and not the small stuff. He takes the view of many that although he knows he should live a more traditional life, he doesn't live in a Muslim country where it's easy to fast for Ramadan (which he still does) because the whole society is structured around it. (ie - you get time off, there's always restaurants open late and early, etc) And he knows that the best way to set a good example of his religion isn't to come off as a self-righteous puritan-preacher, but to be approachable so that, if people want to ask questions and learn, that they can talk to him.

My future sister-in-law converted when she got serious with the man who would be her husband. Long story short - she's a stickler for the obvious signs of faith, such as dress, and obvious actions - such as not wanting to be near alcohol, to the point where she has at times tried to pressure her family into not drinking when she's around (although, she gave up on that), she's also stopped going to any family Hindu celebrations, because she doesn't like the "idolatry" She'd pretty much be the last person I know who would get me to convert, if that's what she thinks she's going to do by being so obviously pious.

In fact, it's kind of known in the Muslim community that converts tend to be more a stickler for the conservative and obvious signs and actions of faith than non-converts do. I think it's just because since religion may not have been a part of their lives from the start, when it suddenly does become part most folks get carried away out of the excitement of "belonging" to something. Or maybe most of them get caught up in the obvious signs of faith because it's new to them, those who are familiar with it for a while are able to see past those things and focus on the bigger, but less visable things.

[JB Globe]

Humans are humans - I like them! Don't need the state to force me to make friends - it's the founders of muti-culturalism that may have had racist feelings - why would they come up with such a silly thing? As children we do not discriminate - and as careing mature loving adults we are fine with all people of good quality - time to drop the experiment - and stop interfering with natural human interaction - it's akin the promotion of homosexuality in our young - which is sexual interference disguised..leave the kids alone and the adults - all strong culture worth it's salt will survive on it's own - multi-culturalism is pandering -who needs that?

Why did you bother quoting my post if your response has nothing to do with what I was talking about?

[Black Dog]

If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time?

Because it's not "self-examination" when we do it to them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Because it's not "self-examination" when we do it to them.

Them? Aren't we all Canadians?

[Black Dog]

Them? Aren't we all Canadians?

Not according to your sentence construction.

If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time?

[August1991]

Them? Aren't we all Canadians?

Jerry, Black Dog is (rightly) calling you on the way you address this issue, and it strikes at the core of the problem which you noted in one of your initial posts:

But you've gotten to the crux of where I was going with this:

1. Do we, as a country, or any other country, define ourselves by a set of common values or beliefs and behaviors which we will try to uphold and defend?

or

2. Do we shift with the demographic winds? Do we simply define ourselves by the beliefs of our "tenants" of the day in this hotel?

For better or worse, at its origins, "multiculturalism" was the admission that Canada has no single, official culture. The fact is - as I frequently hear - Quebec is not a distinct society because each part of Canada is distinct. IOW, the federal government should not (and indeed cannot) promote a single, unique culture for all Canadians.

Does this mean anything goes? Can I beat my wife if my culture allows me to?

No, Canada still has a criminal code and a Charter of Rights which restricts how governments can enforce that criminal code and other laws. To my knowledge, wife-beating is a criminal offence.

So, I guess Canada is a hotel where the federal government must speak two languages but otherwise governments try not to discriminate while allowing individuals the greatest freedom possible.

----

Jerry, I fear that you will think that I have side-stepped your complaint. If two Canadians wish to conduct a negotiation and sign a contract solely in Chinese, should they be free to do so? Well, it depends on the province.

Ultimately, this is a question of how far the State should intervene in the private affairs of individuals. By this, I don't mean that the State should force everyone to accommodate a minority but rather to what extent the State should force a minority to conform to some official behaviour.

I would be the first one to agree that in Canada, the State is used too often to dictate behaviour. The problems of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are two recent noteworthy examples but there are many others. Various government panels in Canada are dictating to Levant and Steyn what they can and cannot write.

Let me be more explicit. The problem is not that some Muslims follow objectionable (to you) practices. The problem is that the State has gotten involved in dictating behaviour. Following that idea, I sometimes perform a thought experiment by imagining Canada and the US in the year, say, 2157. If Muslims really do form a majority of the population then, which country is more likely to protect the minority from majority oppression? IOW, which system is more likely to ensure that the State cannot be used as a method to oppress the minority?

Edited January 16, 2008 by August1991

[frankbaker]

As a Quebecker of Scottish ancestry, I would like to see the Maritimes join Quebec following independence. I understand this is highly improbable but I believe this option should be considered just as seriously. Both share a common Celtic heritage that is more and more foreign to the rest of Canada. Quebec has the merit of fighting for its heritage, while Canada is slowly drowning its own heritage in blind multiculturalism. No offence but statistics show that pretty soon being Canadian will mean being Pakistani or Chinese, indifferent to when or how this land was first setlled, by pioneering French, Irish and Scots. There are things that bond people stronger than language, common traditions, relation to the land, music, shared hardship, etc. An english-speaking New Brunswicker of Irish ancestry has a hundred times more in common with a french-speaking Quebecker than with another english-speaking Canadian from BC of Chinese or Indu descent. These things matter more than than people will admit to themselves, they're the glue that gives a country a common identity. People of Irish, Scottish or French descent (most of which came from Brittany) are Celtic brothers that can work together to defend what they hold in common. Maybe one day folks in the Maritimes will realize their heritage had more chance of lasting by staying with Quebec than staying with Canada.

[eyeball]

As an Earthling of human ancestry, I'm able to rise above all this and have a good laugh at everyone else's expense. Thanks.

2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics.

Talking about broad strokes this is really subjective don't you think? I'd say cultures and characteristics are just things and what people do with these can be either appropriate or inappropriate. That's a choice with consequences, that each individual person is responsible for making and taking, not their culture.

[M.Dancer]

Cultures that practise human sacrifice (slavery, female circumsision etc etc) are no better or worse than those who don't.