Who is (more) morally culpable? The one who should “know better”:

Referring back to the Barbara Branden post some while back:

Assume a small child, unlucky enough to have been born into a an isolated village somewhere, and raised by Muslim fanatics.  Thanks to the fact that he is illiterate, stuck in a “backwater” village somewhere, and (most importantly) systematically trained and indoctrinated almost from birth, to hate “infidels”/”Unbelievers”, and implicitly — or explicitly — regard critical-thinking skills themselves as the “sin” of “shirk” (“Unbelief”):

Assuming that he takes religion seriously, he is (almost) guaranteed to become a “bipedal weapon”, aimed and targeted by others — little more than a “meat-bomb”, ready and willing to be “martyred” to advance the cause of global jihad.

Now, I ask you: who is (more) morally culpable?  The delusional, ingorant savage himself, or the “cultural relativist” pseudo-intellectual, who ENABLES the delusional savage, by prattling about “diversity”, “Tolerance”, and the — purported — intrinsic value of “cultural traditions”?

Transpose the above to other issues:  FGM, the “caste” system in India — hell, even the “apartheid” regime which formerly dominated South Africa.

The Aztecs “sincerely believed” that their ritualistic mass slaughter was “neccesary”, because if they failed to spill enough blood, the world would end.

I submit the following: any individual who is at least (semi)literate, raised in a civilized society, and (most important) PRIVILEGED ENOUGH not to be directly impacted by the aforementioned variants of savagery, is INFINITELY contemptible, to the extent that they choose to become “apologists” for ANY OF IT.

Ignorant savages don’t KNOW any better.

If a homeless schizophrenic shoves a pregnant woman off of a subway platform because “the voices” told him that her unborn child was the reincarnation of Hitler, we all (at least implicitly) recognize that tthe poor deluded head-case was genuinely incapable of refraining from such atrocities.

The last thing anyone (including the schizophrenic himself) needs is for some pseudointellectual to go all “Postmodern”, and start yip-yapping about how “well, who’s to say HIS schizophrenic method of thought is any less valid than the purportedly ‘sane’?  Maybe ‘the voices’ were really telling him the truth – assuming there were any such thing as “big-T truth”, etc.

I submit that the Postmodernist/skeptic in the above example is morally lower than the psychotic, because the Pomo/Skeptic actively “free rides” on the fact that most people ARE “sane enough” to both create — and sustain — a (semi)functional civilization.

So, yeah:  if you’re “privileged” enough to live in a “Western”, technological culture, among people who somehow manage to restrain themselves from ritualistically murdering otherwise healthy children merely because those children’s teeth happened to erupt in a particular (taboo) sequence — then the fact that you even attempt to provide any sort of excuse/ratioalization for those murder-rituals makes you at least partially culpable for those killings.

You are INFINITELY worse than those who (effectively) ignore such occurrences due to mere ignorance that they are happening.  You are also infinitely worse than the tribe-members who attempt to stop that particular “cultural tradition” from continuing to victimize subsequent generations of their own populace.

You may not recognize the above fact.  Most likely, you simply regard yourself as a “dispassionate observer”

However, you inevitably run up against the following indispurable fact:

In the eighteenth century the Enlightenment had dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages, setting individual happiness as a legitimate moral goal, showing that the human mind could understand the movements of the planets and the biology of the human body, and discovering ways to produce the material means for prosperity. Then Rousseau stood before human progress and shouted, “Stop!”
He argued that in the state of nature humans were governed by two instincts: self-preservation and pity for others. We thus lived in idyllic harmony with our fellows and our world. But when we started to think, to use our minds, we worried about the future. That’s when all the trouble began. We sought private property to give us personal security. In the process, we became selfish and put ourselves as individuals in conflict with others. We created creature comforts that cut us off from our natural world and our natural selves. Civilization was the enemy of our virtue.
……
This, of course, is moral nonsense. A look at primitive peoples from the prehistoric to the original inhabitants of America to the odd jungle tribe today shows brutality, superstition that leads to ostracism and murder, and institutionalized human sacrifice along with the occasional “respect” for animal spirits. And, in fact, virtue consists in disciplining our appetites and urges, in the light of reason, toward our individual well-being, which will also lead us to respect our fellows and deal with them based on mutual consent.
There are noble and virtuous individuals in primitive as well as advanced societies. But there’s nothing noble about ignorance of one’s world. There’s nothing noble about the impotence over one’s world that comes from one’s ignorance. There’s nothing noble about being unable to build adequate shelters against the forces of nature, produce adequate food against famines, or discover adequate medicines against illness.
There is literally nothing even remotely “admirable” (or even worth preserving) about the level of ignorance and delusion which could lead tribal populations to believe that they “need” to ritualistically slaughter otherwise healthy children *merely* because their teeth happened to erupt in a “taboo” sequence.
Ignorance is NOT better than knowledge.
Ritual slaughter is NOT better than human rights
Mass starvation is NOT better than abundance (the so-called “obesity epidemic” notwithstanding).
‘Nuff said, really.
Put bluntly: any attempt to excluse/condone/mollycoddle what amounts ot crimes against humanity will be met with — at best — condescention, and — most likely, total contempt.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s