| | Just for confirmation, my argument is about the enthusiasm we have for Peter Costello's comment - NOT about the contempt we should have for cultural relativism. My bile starts to rise and I am sent into fury when I hear equivocations about our inability to judge other cultures - just like Tim.
However, Peter Costello's comment does not read like a rationally considered and consistent stance. It does not read like reason vs mysticism. It reads like the tribe of Australia vs the tribe of Islam.
Andrew's quote makes the point even more clearly:
Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “clear off”. “Basically, people who don’t want to be Australians, and they don’t want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off,” he said. Try swapping some of the words:
Australians who do not want to accept Muslim values should "clear off". Basically, people who don't want to be Muslims, and they don't want to live by Muslim values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off.
What are "Australian values"? As defined by Brendan Nelson, they would almost certainly include many that an objectivist libertarian would consider reprehensible. At this stage, let me be clear:
I understand that the values of the average Australian are leagues more rational than those of Sharia law. Swapping the words around does NOT demonstrate any moral equivalency.
It does, however, demonstrate the weakness of Nelson's argument. If Nelson or Costello were to replace 'Australian-ism' with some kind of moral absolute, then I would be cheering on the barricades, waltzing with Matilda, trying to swallow Australian beer and making each statement sound like a question.
So Tim - I say that principle behind this policy is irrational. I agree with the implied action (i.e. tell anyone who demands that some Australians be subject to Sharia law to die quickly) but not the method used to justify it.
Not sure I get the generalisation joke - but you can explain it later :-)
John - my contention was with the "rational" component of "rational backbone"
P.S. I don't consider myself in the anti-war brigade, in case anyone got that impression from Tim's post.
(Edited by Fraser Stephen-Smith on 10/13, 4:09am)
(Edited by Fraser Stephen-Smith on 10/13, 5:12am)
|
|
