The Cultural Left: Making the World Safe for Fundamentalism

[BeBMan]

Some interesting points, althouth I don´t understand the label "cultural left". Is this a common term in English? What part of the left is described by that? Because you can´t describe "the left" as a whole in that way....

Sounds more like the "dogmatic left" for me, you know, those who are in fierce class struggle everyday

BTW, how can those relativists criticise capitalism when everything has equal value?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
What part of the left is described by that?

Judging by the tone of the article, I'd say commies.

It is also means that the cultural leftist can't pronounce Fundamentalist Christianity, Marxism, Communism and other dogmas false or wrong because that would be applying empirical standards to a belief system.

[Az]

generalizations generalizations.

( I can't believe it, I have the same discussion on another site. )

[Jon Miller]

Re: Your position is very anti utilitarian.

Originally posted by Azazel
[q] Originally posted by Giant_Squid

you do know that science will never give you morality?

Neither will the Pink Unicorn Behind the Moon, or his son ( that is him at the same time ) that died for our sins.

actually a pink unicorn behind the moon would be a far better giver of morality than science

when you try to use science to give you morality you are misusing science and so weakening it

there is no way to misuse a pinkunicorn behind the moon (although if you have it try and explain science to you you will find that it doesn't do a very good job)

you, and others like you, have no concept of what science really is (and what questions it can answer)

if you want to answer questions of morality you would be far better to use a religion or a philosophy (which is better in your view point becuase of the lack of pink unicorns)

Jon Miller

[BeBMan]

DD: Yeah, I wasn´t sure because in the beginning he says "not a movement, an ideology, or a philosophy" etc....

Sounds to me as the kind of popular "leftism" which isn´t grounded in clear political or philosophical ideas, but whines about everything without having better alternatives.

[Kidlicious]

Another thing. Relativism was Einsteins idea, wasn't it? Are there people who actually disagree with it?

[BeBMan]

Not ethical relativism I think

[Kidlicious]

Ok. I'm out of my league because I niether know what ethical relativism is or give a **** about it. I just think we should take care of each other and stop being greedy and irrational.

[BeBMan]

Ethical relativism is similar to what is described in the article from the first post by "all values, beliefs, cultures, ideas and ideologies are of equal value".

If you believe in this, you cannot make moral judgements about anything. Consequently this would eg. mean that Racism is of equal value than Humanism.

[chequita guevara]

Cultural realtivism is not cultural leftism. While they claim to be leftists, their philosophy is actually quite conservitive. It comes down inaction in the face of oppression and an inability to side with justice. The left actually rejects these people and their philosophy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The left actually rejects these people and their philosophy.

Does that mean that they are able to label dogmas such as Marxism as wrong?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Ethical relativism is similar to what is described in the article from the first post by "all values, beliefs, cultures, ideas and ideologies are of equal value".

If you believe in this, you cannot make moral judgements about anything. Consequently this would eg. mean that Racism is of equal value than Humanism.

Thanks BeBro. And I agree with Che. That has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx was no ethical relativist. The article implies that he was, so its just crap.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Judging by the tone of the article, I'd say commies.

That's not accurate at all, since commuism is just an enconomic system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not accurate at all, since commuism is just an enconomic system.

1) Bugger off if that is all you have to say.

2) Ideaology that advocate the overthrow of the status quo are inherently political.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Okay, my personal moral philosophy in a nutshell - barring God, it's impossible for there to be any logically establishable objective morality independent of and superior to individual people because of the lack of any objectively declared beginning postulate. I declare utilitarianism to be my postulate, which is entirely my own thing. How can I argue that my postulate is superior to someone else's postulate? Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is, when a non-utilitarian says "You should never murder" he's basing this on the fact that murder causes pain, but this is done at such a basic level of thought that one isn't aware of it.

I agree with that. I am a Utilitarian, it is my postulate, to us GS's phrase, however I am not objective, therefore I cannot say that it is better, merely that I believe it is.

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is

Originally posted by Azazel
Not true. take libertarians for example. Generally, "everyone's a utilitarian, they just don't realize it, is not correct. remember those "don't kill a man to spare a thousand" quotes?

Yes, although you could argue that is because they believe it is best, creates the most happiness, not to kill that one. They would be personally utilitarian, that is that they do what creates the most happines for them, and as David Floyd once said, there is preventing death, and there is preventing me from killing. That believe it is happier for them to make sure that they don't kill first, and then to reduce the number of deaths second. Since I believe that everyone does what is in their best interest, I think it is a governments position to inforce laws that mean what is best for the individual, what they would choose to do in that situation is also best for society.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is no way to misuse a pinkunicorn behind the moon

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does that mean that they are able to label dogmas such as Marxism as wrong?

If you were culturally relativist, you would have to say that all opinions, such as Marxism, are equal, regardless of the evidence or 'truth' behind it. That would mean that a theory that is true (such as Gravity on Earth) would be of equal weight to one that is false (such as that the Earth is flat). This seems silly to me. The opposite would be to state that some are wrong and some are right, but who would you be to decide? Therefore everyone would believe their opinions are right, and every who disagrees is wrong. Quite simply, it is not possible for them all to be right, and thus cultural absolutism seems silly too. However there is a large grey area in the middle of those that believe that some opinions are equal, and some are more valid than others. The only way I can think to determine that is based on the evidence supporting each opinion, although I am sure there are other ways.

Therefore I think that the validity of an opinion depends on the strength of the argument and evidence supporting it. For example, a nobel prize winning economist's opinion, backed up by much economic data, theory and past experience, has a more valid opinion on whether the UK should join the Euro than a high school dropout who's only argument is prejudice. However I think in many things, it is impossible to say what is more valid, such as whether one food tastes better than another, or what is the best film ever made.