On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:18:30 +0200, Risto Kupsala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Rex May wrote:
> > Risto, what about cultures that require human sacrifice, cannibalism, and
> > slavery?
>Human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery are acceptable means in
>exceptional situations such as war and famine. Is it ultimately so
>different to sacrifice for a deity or for a country? As for slavery, it
>still exists in many forms in the West, and part of it has been
>outsourced to keep prices low.
>I think every culture is still far away from moral perfection, and our
>eagerness to judge each other is a sign of that.

Yes, it's very different to sacrifice for a country.  Taking up arms to defend a country 
(which exists) is quite a bit different than cutting the hearts out of prisoners to please an 
Aztec deity that doesn't exist.

Slavery in the West?  Where?   If you mean Africa, I hardly count that as 'West.'  The 
West rampaged all over Africa once, first taking advantage of slavery, and later doing its 
best to stamp it out, with discouraging results from both.  I don't recommend either one.

And you're talking about things being resorted to when necessary.  I'm talking about 
things embedded in a culture that are NOT necessary.  We're edging towards moral 
relativism here, which is the inevitable result of multiculturalism.  "Is female circumcision 
really so bad?   I saw an eight-year-old girl at the mall the other day with pierced ears." 
That sort of thing.

Eagerness to judge each other is no problem.  If anything, it's a sign that you have a 
concept of right and wrong.  The problem is when you decided to enforce your judgment 
on other countries.  I don't want Iran invading the US to make us stop it with a lot of 
morally corrupt stuff (tho I'd maybe agree with some of their opinions), and I don't want 
us to invade Iran to make them change their social behavior (tho some Iranians might 
want some of them changed).   Live and let live.  How hard is that?