> > [Krimel] > > Yes, most certainly! > > > > Western law is our business. > > Muslim law is theirs. > > [Platt] > Interesting. What is the moral principle behind ours and theirs? Right of > sovereignty? Privacy? Would it have been immoral for us to have interfered > with the Holocaust? > > [Krimel] > We and they have evolved differing sets of moral expression to maintain our > cultures and to pass them on to our children. These separate moral codes > evolved under different conditions. They are different but both seem to be > effective.
So we shouldn't interfere in anyone's culture so long as it is effective? Should we have interfered in Bosnia? > I don't think we did intervene to end the Holocaust. We intervened because > our friends and eventually our navy were attacked. Right. My question was, "Would it be moral if we had interfered on the basis of that genocide alone/" > Should we have intervened > in Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda? I would say that according to OUR moral code we > should offer assistance when we are asked to do so. Asked by whom? Does "offers assistance" mean sending in armed forces to stop the killing? > In fact according to our > own moral code we should be doing far far more to feed the starving, cure > the sick and educate the illiterate at home and abroad. Including cultures who have harmed us and threaten more? And what is "our moral code" anyway? Christian? > > >[Krimel] > > > From the stand point of evolution diversity is in some sense THE highest > > > good. It represents freedom and a broader range of options. When > > > circumstances undergo change diversity of options is often the > > > difference between existence continuing and existence ending. > > [Platt] > Like jailing the teacher who allowed her class to name a teddy bear > Mohammed? Was not her expression of freedom and that of her class > repressed? > > [Krimel] > Perhaps Muslims believe that tolerance for blasphemy is a greater threat to > the fabric of their society than freedom of speech. Rather like the > Christian Right's stand on pornography or the Bush administration's view of > civil liberties in general. When you see freedom of speech squelched by Christians or the Bush administration by imposing jail terms and whippings, do let us know. I would suggest that political correctness as practiced on college campuses is a far more like the Muslim approach to preserving society's fabric than anything Christians or the Bush Administration do. Maybe you won't get a whipping for violating campus speech codes, but if found guilty you face involuntary "sensitivity training" at best and expulsion at worst. You would think a college campus would be the last place where free speech ought to be inhibited. > [Krimel] > > It is also a good argument for protecting endangered > > species and preserving natural environments. > > [Platt] > Cutting down a tree violates the tree's freedom? Seems you can carry this a > bit too far. > > [Krimel] > Cutting down a tree is a far cry from wholesale destruction of habitats. > Among the most horrifying images in "An Inconvenient Truth" was the > satellite view of the earth at night. In the northern hemisphere we saw city > lights; in the southern hemisphere there was a belt of glowing red; the > earth's lungs burning. Gee, I didn't know the earth had lungs. Are volcanoes the earth's ass holes? (Sorry. I couldn't resist.) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
