Ethical relativism can be best summed up in the phrase : "When is Rome do as Romans do", i.e you either follow what society in whatever part of the world you belong to determines as right or you stick to what you believe in, without giving an inch. Either way, is unacceptable. The theory dictates that actions are right within a particular society when they are approved by law, custom or other conventions of society. The reason why we do away with this theory is because it implies absurdities. It would justify genocide and salvery.
Descriptive relativism is in ways true, and in ways not. While it supports the fact that customs and beliefs vary from culture to culture, it shouldn't be used to support wife-abuse, rape, etc. Ethical relationalism or contextualism on the other hand, however reminds us that moral judgements are contextual.
What doesn't change, no matter which ethical 'ism you wish to follow or believe in or deem correct, is that if it violates basic human rights, it is wrong. It, here refers to action or lack of it. So, no matter what "rule" the society has come up with, if it defies basic human rights, it's wrong. No two ways about it.
So, when I say that a collective consensus on certain view points, traditions and conventions make them definite, I do not mean to say that they are in any way correct. Or wrong for that matter. There are still people in this world who believe in sati and killing the girl child and all that. Yes, it is/was a part of their culture, but that doesn't justify the action. At least, not NOW, when we know of human rights and have what is called education and intelligence.
Coming back to the previous post, freedom of choice,is a part of these "basic human rights", as is viewed from any angle. The fact that the definition of choice, is in itself relative, is a different issue all together. Also, rape no matter what the woman is wearing or not, is wrong. There is nothing called "freedom to rape", even if only theoretically or for the sake of arguement, or so I should hope. Most especially not amongst what comprises of the educated in society. Lastly, the justification of MAKING someone dress "modestly" based on the "roving eye" is what I am against.
Interesting post, PK.. But, I can't think of a win-win-win situation..
looks like BS has been reading a lot of Stephen Covey these days (*snicker*)
well i do seem to have a win-win-win situation....and that is involving the victim and the society to mete out the punishment to the accused.
the victim wins, so does the society and i go home felling all good as well...so there Stinger
all said and done...i loved this post...the language...the absolute no-nonsense and straighforwardness and complication in the language that requires one to actually read the post.
@bs: As far as I remember, I used a bikini on the beach in response to an arguement that asked me to see what happened if I ventured to college in one. People, if not me, wear even skimpier stuff to college.
Anyway, point was that there are places and situations which call for a certain way of dressing. This is no way has anything to do with a person being or not being raped. Like I said, a woman can attract attention, if she wants to no matter what she is wearing or not wearing or showing or covering. So, your "you don't think men drool" is a moot point.
As for your win-win-win (Yes, I got them right, imagine.) situation and the answer to a problem lying down the un ventured path, your kinda contradicting the point you made on the last post. No matter what 'ism you follow and no matter what the solution sensible or otherwise might be, it is wrong if it violates basic human rights.
Nav's giving you a pretty convincing win-win-win (Got it right again!) situation.
Also, I'm saying it again, since my saying the last ten times hasn't had any effect, rape is wrong. No matter what.
@saranya: nav's laid out a pretty convincing one.
@nav: thankus for the adjectives. We all have our moments.
Thanks for bisiting guys, lotsaluv,
yours forever sthupitly.
yep that's pretty much covey and son from their 7 habits book.
but anyway...lemme take an analogy...i don't think given the vast untapped medical enthusiasm that each one of us seems to have(i am talking about self-medication)...anyone would pop an anti-cancer drug without knowing that he/she has cancer in the first place...thus, there's gotta be an evidence of such acts taking place without any thread actually linking all of them except for the end result...needless to say however i am also of the opinion that such acts needn't be allowed to amplify before getting someone to act on it.
i don't think there's a dichotomy in the society when it comes to such despicable acts...the guilty however should be made to set an example for others NOT to follow.
like it or not...we gotta embrace the society that we help complete...unless of course you ive in places where the caribou and the penguins outnumber the human inhabitants :)
Yeah thinking in binary is very limiting.
Here is a question for you then. So basic human rights are beyond any kind of ethical relativism. But what are basic human rights? Not to get murdered or raped fair enough, but do human beings have the basic right to eat? Do they have the basic right to medical care?
Then we have a problem by extension. If people have the basic right to medical care, what level of medical care? Theoritically, even death by old age is curable by hypothetical fututre technology, so if everyone has the right to the best medical care we can provide should we provide cryogenic suspension to everyone? And if this is a right, who's responsibilityu is it to gather the resources neeeded to make the right a reality.
As a libertarian I believe it is not my place to legislate my morality, ie have the government make laws just because I have moral beliefs. How this works then, is that I believe people have the right to become and buy the services of prostitutes, even though I think that prostitution is ultimately destructive. Likewise, I believe that people should have no laws barring them from ingesting whatever chemicals they wish, even though much of these actions would be incredibly stupid.
SO, for you, what are basic human rights? We should stop people from murdering raping stealing, those are the easy ones; but should we stop people from smoking pot? SHooting heroine? Making abusive, assaulting pornography if both parties agree? What are socities rights in limiting the choices of consentual adults?
Also, if it isn't too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could update your link to my knew blog. Thanks. Keep up the writing, I especially like the kind that makes me think.
Lastly, the justification of MAKING someone dress "modestly" based on the "roving eye" is what I am against.
i totally agree... it infuriates me... and i don't know why... i am not a Muslim (im an atheist), nor do i have many Muslim friends... just the mere thought is so ludicrous i can't help but feel strongly about it... :$
@bs: areey baba, think reality. we are a part of society and it is a part of us. a part that makes us who we are, what we think and what we believe in. it is the same part that determines our actions and the same part that we live with. It's is futile to think otherwise.
When I agree with nav about getting together with society and meeting out a punishment to those who deserve it, I am not washing my hands off anything. It is necessary that people understand why things are wrong, and why the person needs to be punished. And why that is important is because this public, usually, while punishing, ends up punishing the victim. And that's why we do it together.
See, I agree that dressing decently is a way to protect yourself. I totally agree. I mean obviously I'd think twice, thrice and maybe more times before I decide to wear a swim suit and trvel on a bus. that's like asking for trouble. Yes, I agree. The point I am against is it happening at all. That you use it as an excuse to take away the choice of a person to dress however he/she wishes too.
And if you really are so bothered about the female race and the hediousness of the crime, why don't you blind fold the men? They are lesser in number after all.
@Lokon: These basic 'isms do obey human rights. But only to some extent. Justifying your actions based on these is wrong. Like I said I can justify genocide and I can justify sati, based on these, even though when I'm just telling you what the theories are, I'm making logical sense.
See, these human rights, their violation and non violation, can all be justified based on circumstance. I could say war is a violation of human rights, but how does that make a difference to anyone? I understand that the millions of people who die because of poverty is a violation of human rights too. But some things in this world, just are. You wish they weren't, and you want to howl at the injustice of all of it, but they are.
All of the stuff you've mentioned is a violation of human rights. You sometimes violate them by doing such stuff to yourself and at others by doing it to others.
There's freedom of choice, but people use this to choose to kill themselves and violate the right to life. There's freedom of speech, but people use it to hurt others. These rights are conflicting, specially when you live in a society and everyone is entitled to everything.
What defines you, and makes you a slighter "violater" of these is when you can police yourself into not violating stuff you can help.
I have no answers to your questions.
@sunrise: yes, it is sad.
Thanks for bisiting guys, and taking the time to write all this!
Yours forever sthupitly.
well.....i cudn reply immediately to ur comment
and the statistics of US weomen getting raped......its a survey conducted by the "National Coalation for the protection of familiees nd children".....taken from the book "You Can Win" by the very famous author Shiv Khera(page no. 38).so now u know..i'm not making up any statistics
nd if modesty is dressing up in a salwar for u..then for others burkah is modesty
i fail to understand y ppl have such a huge problem with muslims wearing a burkah...dont they have a right to cover themselevs up
nd more importantly they r covering THEIR faces...they arent asking u to cover yours....so y exactly are u sooo bothered????
if u really care for the ppl around u...nd talk bt human rights,etc it wud be nice if u can post a blog on all the atrocities being committed by US in Iraq,Afghanistan and Palestine...the 100's of kids who r dying everyday for absolutely no fault of theirs
talk against all tht instead
@anon: I have read the book. And I know who the guy is, up front. There are NO statistics based on "women wearing burkha s and women not wearing burkha s and their chances of getting raped."
I have no problem with people dressing up, or down. I have no problem with women wearing burkhas, covering their faces or not covering their faces.
I DO have a problem when muslims trash other muslims because they don't wear a burkha. Calling them sluts. I DO have a problem with MAKING someone dress "modestly" based on the "roving eye" is what I am against. As, I've repeated again and again. And again. If your so bothered why don't you make men wear blindfolds? They are lesser in number, so it'd be easy. But you won't do that, because they're men.
If your going to do something, you should do it for the right reasons. yes, i am no one to determine what's right and what's wrong, but you do, for yourself.
If with the write-abt-wat-US-is-doing-in-the-gulf your trying to tell me to stop taking muslims to task, you are wrong. I'm talking people. Not muslims. And not anyone or any religion in particular.
Yours forever sthupitly.
oh..........for heavens sake....ur talking like as if u can go out there and change the whole world....nd c the way u want to c..
just to remind u ....u aint any mother teresa!!!!!!!!!
alrighty. I intend to change as much of it as i can.
And no, I'm no mother teresa. It'd do you good to remember that. And the fact that I'm not Gandhi either.
Yours forever sthupitly.
oh...ya..nd by the way just remember tht muslims r "ppl" as well....
but this comment is not completley aginst ur blog either...i agree tht men forcing women to do certain things is absolutely inhuman or more specifically..UNISLAMIC....
i blv tht every man who has raped has to be castrated nd stoned to death....
but remeber tht many women cover thier facs with their own will...no ones forcing it....but if few men r forcing them to do certian things as i've said previously it's totally unacceptable.
@anon : i didn't ever say they aren't people. I said I wasn't talking about them specifically. I was making a general statement.
I told you, I have nothing against people who wish to wear the burkha. I just don't think you should force it. That's it.
You can go on being defensive, however it'd be best if you realise I'm not being offensive. And hence, there is no need to take on that stance.
Yours forever sthupitly.
@anon: too good a discussion for me to miss out on...hope i am pardoned(same goes for you too pree).
i don't think preetika's has ever said anything about women who like wearing the burkah...rather she's all pro for women wanting to wear anything they like provided they are secure and comfortable in it.
you say whatever you wish to but then the maulvi or some big respected guy in your circles comes out with something really stupid...so who is to be believed?
oh and just for curiosity sake...is there a similar reason behind you choosing not to reveal your name? you needn't answer that.
p.s: apologies for any misconduct...especially towards the owner of the blog.
@nav : it's a good thing there are apologies at the end of your comment, else this comment would have found its place in the bin.
thanks for the support, finally someone actually registered what I've been incessantly and irritatingly repeating.
@anon : this nav guy can get kinda sarcastic at times. don't take offence.
thankus for bisitng,
yours forever sthupitly.
you might have wanted to add that i hate ignorance and baseless arguments as well...but let it go
hahahaha. sure, that too. Sawwy.
yours forever sthupitly.
@ nav.....as to who shud be beleved....i'll go by what my Holy Book says....no listening to any maulvi or the so called "respecetd ppl"....coz in todays world anyone wud do anything for money....even if tht meant telling a whole bunch of lies to attract attention
and as for revaeling my identity..eh......curious... is it?
i'm nasmira frm hyderabad.
@pree...well.....sarcasm is my life...i can make a career out of it (lol)....so i definately wudn mind nav!
na... i just mentioned it cuz you "reacted" to all of my previous statements.
by the by, where'd you get hold of my name?
yours forever shupitly.
@pree...ur name???????????
i've bin visitin ur blog for nearly 6 months now....got interested wen i saw tht most of ur posts reflected my thoughts
except for the post in which i "reacted" so much (lol)
just tht u put then down beautifully in words nd dey remain in the form of thoughts in my head for ages...
so getting to know ur name was frm comments which others have posted.
@Anon/Nashmira: nah...not curious...just that it made for a lot of irony.
and going by what you believe, then you really on our side(if there is one at all)...so i dunno where the confusion came about from (but yeah...you can blame it all on me)
The law of basic human rights - if my right to freedom encroaches over yours, you are no longer free, and the right to freedom - which should apply universally - is no longer there.
Rape does that. It violates the victim's right against exploitation, which excludes it from being a right.
Ofcourse, even 'my' definition is blurry, as will be any definition of freedom, or freedom of choice.
I also agree totally about the dressing modestly v/s 'inviting rape'. Even if someone walks naked, or if he/she is a 'sex-worker', it does not give anyone else the right to violate them.
I have a few posts on Freedom here: http://gopswritings.blogspot.com/search?q=Freedom+of+speech
@anon: i truely am flattered.
@nav: lol, chrue.
@gops: na... it's just what I wanted to say too, so if your definition is blurry so is mine.
will check them out as soon as i can.
Thankus for bisiting guys, lotsaluv,
yours forever sthupitly.