[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Platt Holden]

> > [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.)