Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 11:14 pm
It appears to me that the academic world and the world of the mainstream media are now dominated by a sort of elitist liberal philosophy of extreme moral relativism.

This is the philosophy that is called "political correctness"; it goes beyond an agreed upon idea of justice where "all people are created equal" (everyone should have the same opportunities) to practically claim that all human lifestyles, ideas, customs, cultures, and practices are equally correct and "equal" according to some set of morals, and so therefore, we, as a society, should accept them all (or at least most of them).

A couple problems with this:


-In a college anthropology or history class, it might be taught that in culture a, citizens participate or participated in a practice of sacrificing humans. Of course the students will be instructed not to label these people as "uncivilized" or "savage" because of their acts; this would be an "ethnocentric" viewpoint, and hence a wrong viewpoint to have. Immediately, any real discussion that could be had on moral concepts of "right" and "wrong" is finished. To argue that this practice is wrong is to be politically incorrect.

How about the fact that in most islamic cultures, women are treated as second-class citizens? They are usually forbidden to receive proper education, they perform the chores of the home with no other career option, and they are forced to wear certain clothes which cover their bodies, sometimes in entirety. Now of course all of these things do not hold true for all islamic groups, but women are still treated as second-class citizens in the majority of these. Why should I not be allowed to argue, without being labelled a "racist" or "ethnocentrist", that this practice is 100% wrong?

And I am not targeting Islam here; the fact is that there is clear injustice being done within many groups, some worse than others. Slavery still exists in parts of Africa. Am I really so wrong to denounce these cultures for being "bad", or unjust cultures? Is this type of language really inexcusable to allow in debate, even though the culture promotes slavery? How about forced genital mutilation? The practice is widespread in both Africa and the United States, committed against women and men, respectively. Is it "incorrect" for me to make the argument that something is wrong with a culture that allows such practices to take place?

If I were to argue against circumcision in the US, because I am a member of this culture, my argument would be seen as valid and worthy of response. If I were to argue against female genital mutilation in Africa, my argument would be seen as ethnocentric, in that I do not "understand" the culture of Africa where this practice is accepted (certainly not happily by everyone).

There is a problem in our society when everyone is taught to think in purely relativistic terms. Surely we do acknowledge that opinions are relative, but any society with laws recognizes that we cannot view all cultures and practices as being OK and acceptable based on a doctrine of moral relativism. I do not think we should be afraid of hurting some feelings or offending some groups of people if it helps people to look at, and hopefully rout, injustice wherever it may stand. Calling people "savages" of course really just amounts to name-calling, but criticizing another culture due to its accepted practices, in my opinion, is a good thing. What is everybody so afraid of? Hurting feelings and ruffling feathers?

We try to avoid arguments in grade school so kids don't run home to their parents crying, but is this type of attitude one that should be allowed in college and in the media? Is it not a violation of my liberty to censor my thoughts in a public institution because they may run the risk of being "discriminatory"? And since when did commenting on the negative effects of certain cultures or societal values become discriminatory?

If I look at your culture and conclude "there is something inherently wrong with your culture, which condones this type of behavior", I am not making a judgment as to your worth as a human being (though you might falsely take it this way). Humans are created equal, but contrary to what you may learn in grade school, ideas are not, and certainly the actions that come from them are not. The manson cult believed that their actions were completely right and just, and they had no qualms about committing murder. Yet we realize that this was a BAD culture. After they committed murder, no one really cared about hurting their feelings. And why should I care about hurting your feelings if I tell you your culture is bad for promoting mistreatment of women or children?


So what do you all think about 'political correctness' in our society, and is it being promoted by a faction of the academic liberal elite, or by society as a whole?



Quote:

SOCRATES: When you have come to a decision in your own mind about something, and declare your opinion to me, this opinion is, according to his doctrine, true to you; let us grant that; but may not the rest of us sit in judgement on your decision, or do we always judge that your opinion is true? Do not myriads of men on each occasion oppose their opinions to yours, believing that your judgement and belief are false?

[170e] THEODORUS: Yes, by Zeus, Socrates, countless myriads in truth, as Homer says, and they give me all the trouble in the world.

SOCRATES: Well then, shall we say that in such a case your opinion is true to you but false to the myriads?

THEODORUS: That seems to be the inevitable deduction.

SOCRATES: And what of Protagoras himself? If neither he himself thought, nor people in general think, as indeed they do not, that man is the measure of all things, is it not inevitable that the "truth" which he wrote is true to no one? But if he himself thought it was true, [171a] and people in general do not agree with him, in the first place you know that it is just so much more false than true as the number of those who do not believe it is greater than the number of those who do.

THEODORUS: Necessarily, if it is to be true or false according to each individual opinion.

SOCRATES: Secondly, it involves this, which is a very pretty result; he concedes about his own opinion the truth of the opinion of those who disagree with him and think that his opinion is false, since he grants that the opinions of all men are true.

THEODORUS: Certainly.

[171b] SOCRATES: Then would he not be conceding that his own opinion is false, if he grants that the opinion of those who think he is in error is true?

THEODORUS: Necessarily.

SOCRATES: But the others do not concede that they are in error, do they?

THEODORUS: No, they do not.

SOCRATES: And he, in turn, according to his writings, grants that this opinion also is true.

THEODORUS: Evidently.

SOCRATES: Then all men, beginning with Protagoras, will dispute -- or rather, he will grant, after he once concedes that the opinion of the man who holds the opposite view is true -- even Protagoras himself, I say, [171c] will concede that neither a dog nor any casual man is a measure of anything whatsoever that he has not learned. Is not that the case?

THEODORUS: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then since the "truth" of Protagoras is disputed by all, it would be true to nobody, neither to anyone else nor to him.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,796 • Replies: 33
No top replies

 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 07:24 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss,

I quite often share your frustration on this issue. I believe that in many forums it's been taken too far. You've stated quite well your position and if I understand you sufficiently, I think it likely you've also stated the best solution. A couple of thoughts I have on this:

  • Political Correctness, as we've labeled it, I believe started out as a well-meaning attempt to quell bigotry, unfair/derisive labeling and ethnocentrism. But with many things humans do, we seem to have taken it too far. Many such well-meaning "social controls" on expression tend to go overboard.


  • You nailed the gist of the problem a couple of times in your post when you differentiated between "name-calling" and judging a behavior as "wrong". I think it right and proper that we speak up against what we perceive to be wrong behavior. Of course, this sparks many a debate on what is or isn't right, but that's the nature of the beast; an often-painful, but necessary and prudent aspect of ethics.


  • I abhor ethnocentrism and nationalism. I believe these two to be the basis of degrading behaviors and statements. Whether or not something said constitutes such a behavior can be a difficult call to make. I recently posted a book review on "Genocide of the Mind" (link) that contains a litany of examples of how stereotypical and culturally-degrading labeling has cause real, quantifiable hurt. So yea, there are times where "political correctness" - taken reasonably - is necessary.


  • When I was in college (and particularly in sociology), this issue came up a lot for our classes too. But I don't recall having this kind of trouble. The instructors I had didn't appear - to me - to be taking it too far and they were quite liberal.


  • And speaking of that; if I may, being liberal isn't the problem (and I don't mean to imply you're saying it is). The problem is failing to differentiate between a ethical judgment and a bigoted "slam" - that's where they err (imho).


  • If I call the practice of Female Circumcision "Morally reprehensible" (as I believe it to be), you can bet that those doing it would call me a bigot. I've made an ethical "call" on their behavior that I see to be correct and important to make. People who receive criticism - prudent or not - tend to defend their positions using any and all means at their disposal. Because an ethical judgment hurts someone's feelings isn't justification for them to call it "ethnocentrism"; you can tell them they're simply incorrect.


  • I wish you luck in your classes. If I were you I'd make a strong case, in front of the classes, to inform them that there's a large difference between calling a behavior unethical and judging a cultural norm simply because it's different.

Good topic, I hope I've done it (and my view) justice here.

Thanks
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 07:58 am
@Pangloss,
Far from being an elitist stance, I see political correctness as just the opposite: a democratic relativism that extends political equality to ethical, educational, and intellectual discussion and theory. "Everyone is entitled to his opinions" is the warcry of the masses, not of any elite.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:10 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;32513 wrote:
  • And speaking of that; if I may, being liberal isn't the problem (and I don't mean to imply you're saying it is). The problem is failing to differentiate between a ethical judgment and a bigoted "slam" - that's where they err (imho).


  • If I call the practice of Female Circumcision "Morally reprehensible" (as I believe it to be), you can bet that those doing it would call me a bigot. I've made an ethical "call" on their behavior that I see to be correct and important to make. People who receive criticism - prudent or not - tend to defend their positions using any and all means at their disposal. Because an ethical judgment hurts someone's feelings isn't justification for them to call it "ethnocentrism"; you can tell them they're simply incorrect.



Yes, please don't think I am criticizing "liberals" in general for this viewpoint. I am not. Though it just seems that there is a group within what you might call the "liberal media" or "liberal academics" that seems to mainly be behind the practice you stated: being overly, harshly critical of those who make ethical judgments, and associating those types of judgments with bigotry. (Of course there are plenty of "conservatives", independents, and people from all other political groups who engage in this political correctness).

What this attitude does really is to just stifle any real mainstream debate as to the nature of "right" and "wrong". Rather than allow people to reason with one another on the problem, we instantly end the discussion because it is "bigoted". I agree that there are those out there (probably many people) who do make statements based on bigotry, and blind nationalism and ethnocentrism (which does not help anything along this line of argument). But to criticize a culture or a custom of people, I think, should be perfectly acceptable.

I have not really encountered any "problems" with this in college courses, but I have noticed the problem itself in the way many courses were taught in school. There were a couple lectures where a professor would spend the entire time talking about the problem of ethnocentric viewpoints in order to defend the actions of some group of people that practices torture or sacrifice. Certainly any arguments about the morals of a culture I make are not (in my best effort) based on ethnocentrism, but on what I see as being just or unjust.

In this matter, I could come up with a huge list of the problems with American culture and say where I think people are going wrong. That would be acceptable in the PC-climate, but were I to shift those criticisms to another culture, no matter how clearly they are correct, the argument is dismissed as "bigotry". People need to make a distinction between the arguments. Certainly if someone appears on a talk show and just dismisses another culture as being "savage" or "uncivilized" without anything to back that up, then they are name calling, and chances are they really are a bigot. If they can cite actual instances to support those names, then what's wrong with saying that? The real name-calling is when the politically correct crowd just comes along and shuts down the argument by labeling the person saying it as a "bigot", "racist", or worse, "fascist", or "nazi" even are words that I hear being blindly thrown around at people who have valid arguments against injustice in other cultures.
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:25 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;32518 wrote:
"Everyone is entitled to his opinions" is the warcry of the masses, not of any elite.


I agree everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. Really, my argument is in support of the freedom of speech: the freedom of speech to criticize the culture of your people, or of any other group of people for engaging in morally wrong behavior.

The political correct crowd does not seem to honor freedom of speech, in my view, by shutting down these arguments involving the judgment of culture or human practice. What they are really moving towards is the concept of social relativism whereby all cultural values and practices are accepted as being equally right and good. I agree that people should be treated as equals, as far as their human rights and liberties go, and they deserve freedom of speech. But there is no reason to treat ideas and cultural practices as equally good. We could extend this mindset to embrace all human actions and practices, no matter how extreme, and it would be as valid as it seems to be now.

Indeed, the politically correct crowd will defend the "right" of a culture to permit (and encourage) human rights violations against its people, simply because the people supposedly agree with and embrace the culture.

"Let's not criticize female genital mutilation in Africa; it may be a human rights violation, but it is 'part of their culture'. Let's not criticize the human rights violations taking place against women in Islamic culture, a culture in which it is taught that women are second class citizens; it is 'part of their culture', so it is fine."

Though many women, once freed from this culture, have spoken out against its injustice. I'm sure many African victims of genital mutilation would do the same, if they were able.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:34 am
@Pangloss,
This certainly is a problem and just another example of where the absolutes of human reason don't particularly mesh with the relativities and general pointlessness of nature.

It seems overly apparent that there are no real moral standards that we can judge by, but it is also overly apparent that such moral judgment is extremely important by our nature as well.

I think the solution is rather simple on the surface: We simply realize that moral deliberation is not real except in terms of human interaction, and human interaction is governed by the rules of human reason and discourse.

Briefly:

Moral justification is inherent in all human actions. We, by our nature, are moral creatures.

So:

No one acts without first deciding that they "should" act.

All actions that involve interaction with another person involves a meaningful moral justification to all involved parties.

There is a generally universal rational and emotional framework to human understanding and decision making.

So all who interact with others can offer up meaningful argument to justify their actions, and all those who are affected can judge the action by this same framework.


In the end, we can accept that people are their own measure of right and wrong, but we can also acknowledge that such measurement is meaningful to all human interaction and can ask for someone to explain themselves.

I don't know what has come over this forum, but moral relativism is a hot topic right now, and this will make the third or fourth time I have put this forward. It is not a perfect solution, as I am not entirely sure how to deal with those who don't share common standards of reason or even distinguish who doesn't share common standards. I'm pretty sure that GE Moore would have a field day with these ideas, but this is the best formulation I have heard yet.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:42 am
@jgweed,
jgweed wrote:
Far from being an elitist stance, I see political correctness as just the opposite: a democratic relativism that extends political equality to ethical, educational, and intellectual discussion and theory. "Everyone is entitled to his opinions" is the warcry of the masses, not of any elite.


Groups that have been historically underprivileged both economically and politically are generally not inclined to relativistic thinking.

Urban black voters, for example, have an extremely conservative voting record on social issues that are not directly linked to the black civil rights movement.

I will see if I kind find any proof of this, but I would bet a good deal of money that a correlation exists between increasing wealth and liberal ideals.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that this is not something new or confined to civil politics. There has long been two large elitist movements:

1) Those elitists who do not care if they screw over everyone simply because they feel they are better and deserve to do what they (the elitists) want.

2) Those elitists who do not care if they screw over everyone simply because they feel they know better and everyone else deserves what they (the elitists) want.

We are dealing with the latter on this. A great deal of liberal idealists are so wrapped up in their own opinions that they think that they know better than the individuals they are trying to "save". Marxists come to mind as an example.
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:51 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
I think the realms of the media and of academia need to include some type of acknowledgment of the necessity of (and existence of) a set of absolute morals. We may not be able to determine them all at once, but we agree that some exist, i.e. You do not murder. You do not steal.

And here we will be met with more charges of ethnocentrism or bigotry, because of course our "absolute" morals will be influenced by, or related to, those found within certain religious texts, and we aren't supposed to promote one religion over another. Again I would argue, what is wrong with promoting a philosophy simply because it is just, even if it does have more to do with one religion (like Christianity) than another? I don't want this to turn into a topic on religion, but the arguments on absolute morality always do; people use religion as a source for these morals. But can't we determine them independently? For the moment, consider all religious works to be speaking of "God" metaphorically, and classify them all as philosophical works (which I think they mainly are). If we arrive at some basic set of moral absolutes that happens to agree more with Christian values (not arrive at it because it is Christian), then what does it really matter?

The idea of justice and what is right and wrong should be apparent where it exists. People say of pornography, "you know it when you see it". Well, I think that all humans "know" when they witness (or perform) a just or an unjust action, and so they are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. You might argue that there are those who are "insane" who have no concept of justice or right and wrong; then perhaps everyone in this world is suffering through various bouts of insanity, in that we can not agree on moral absolutes. Of course if we accepted this philosophy, we would consider that any and all law is motivated by some bigoted viewpoint against the actions of others, and we would have anarchy.
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:54 am
@Pangloss,
The problem and confusion seems to arise from accepting the premise that there is no absolute truth or values, and then concluding from this that therefore all values or "truths" are somehow equal, or that one is as good as any other.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:59 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;32531 wrote:
The problem and confusion seems to arise from accepting the premise that there is no absolute truth or values, and then concluding from this that therefore all values or "truths" are somehow equal, or that one is as good as any other.


Yes, and I think Plato did away with this idea many years ago, in the passage that I posted above, and others. "If the things that exist for me, in that way they appear to me, and if the things that exist to you, in that way they appear to you, then it appears to me your whole doctrine is false." Yet relativism dominates our system of education and our mainstream media. You might determine that it is most absent in churches and in books of law (though law is still left to relativist interpretations and judgments, it is basically absolute as written).

People make some distinction between individual relativism and societal relativism. But if a person accepts the existence of absolute truth, then they cannot accept a relativist doctrine that essentially defines every philosophy as being true and untrue, depending on your frame of reference.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 09:12 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
I think the realms of the media and of academia need to include some type of acknowledgment of the necessity of (and existence of) a set of absolute morals. We may not be able to determine them all at once, but we agree that some exist, i.e. You do not murder. You do not steal.

And here we will be met with more charges of ethnocentrism or bigotry, because of course our "absolute" morals will be influenced by, or related to, those found within certain religious texts, and we aren't supposed to promote one religion over another. Again I would argue, what is wrong with promoting a philosophy simply because it is just, even if it does have more to do with one religion (like Christianity) than another? I don't want this to turn into a topic on religion, but the arguments on absolute morality always do; people use religion as a source for these morals. But can't we determine them independently? For the moment, consider all religious works to be speaking of "God" metaphorically, and classify them all as philosophical works (which I think they mainly are). If we arrive at some basic set of moral absolutes that happens to agree more with Christian values (not arrive at it because it is Christian), then what does it really matter?

The idea of justice and what is right and wrong should be apparent where it exists. People say of pornography, "you know it when you see it". Well, I think that all humans "know" when they witness (or perform) a just or an unjust action, and so they are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. You might argue that there are those who are "insane" who have no concept of justice or right and wrong; then perhaps everyone in this world is suffering through various bouts of insanity, in that we can not agree on moral absolutes. Of course if we accepted this philosophy, we would consider that any and all law is motivated by some bigoted viewpoint against the actions of others, and we would have anarchy.


In doing so we should be extremely careful that we aren't "protecting" people from something they want. There are many muslim women who feel that their status in their society is the just one, and it would seem silly to apply a moral standard that is completely foreign to a particular interaction. That would be the elitist moral prescription that you are trying to avoid.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 10:56 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;32536 wrote:
In doing so we should be extremely careful that we aren't "protecting" people from something they want. There are many muslim women who feel that their status in their society is the just one, and it would seem silly to apply a moral standard that is completely foreign to a particular interaction. That would be the elitist moral prescription that you are trying to avoid.


Of course. I don't want to "protect" anyone from any argument or idea; they should be protected from unjust acts. If a muslim woman wants to live like a second-class citizen, she has every right to do so; and I have every right to criticize that culture which supports and teaches this doctrine of injustice.

I would like the playing field to be open, where arguments that are critical of others' societies and cultural values are valid and acceptable arguments. Right now they are not tolerated on the basis of being "politically incorrect". It would be better to err on the side of free speech and hurt feelings than on the side of this mindset that is telling us "oh, we don't want to go there, it might not be a politically correct thing to suggest".
0 Replies
 
ciceronianus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 01:28 pm
@Pangloss,
I am too far away from the academy now to make any judgment regarding whether it is a source of "political correctness." My children will soon be in college, and I am curious to see what they encounter.

I think there is a certain slothfulness, even perhaps cowardice, in the view that we cannot or should not, ever, "judge" other people or other cultures. It certainly makes for easy answers to difficult questions. But it is useful to use the mind now and then, and making judgments is part of that exercise. The difficult thing, of course, is making good, informed judgments.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 02:13 pm
@ciceronianus,
ciceronianus;32992 wrote:
I think there is a certain slothfulness, even perhaps cowardice, in the view that we cannot or should not, ever, "judge" other people or other cultures. It certainly makes for easy answers to difficult questions. But it is useful to use the mind now and then, and making judgments is part of that exercise. The difficult thing, of course, is making good, informed judgments.


Exactly. This mindset of political correctness, or of "excessive democracy" and accepting all views as being right and good, ultimately, is a path to anarchy. We want and need laws and order in our society, and we should respect certain boundaries. We should be working towards finding the most just type of order; this order does not include giving up and simply accepting everything. That is no order at all.
OctoberMist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 02:41 pm
@ciceronianus,
ciceronianus said:

Quote:

I think there is a certain slothfulness, even perhaps cowardice, in the view that we cannot or should not, ever, "judge" other people or other cultures.


I think you have a good point, though I also believe we have to be careful not to slip into ethnocentrism.

The way I handle it, when examing another culture, is to ask myself if their social mores, customs, beliefs, etc. work for me and examine why or why not.

I've noticed a trend in the media in the USA over the past 150+ years to maintain that some other cultures are "evil" or "perverted" or "wrong" simply because they are different than the way we do things here.

For example, when Norwegian settlers first came to the US in the 1800's, they were accustomed to using saunas in the nude. Many of them were arrested for 'indecency' and 'sexual perversion' back in those old days because their tradition was not understood nor accepted by the social mores of the US at the time.

Today, in most saunas in the US at gymnastic clubs, nothing is thought of someone being nude in a sauna -- because we have assimilated the idea that use of a sauna is non-sexual (which, of course, it is true). Yet, when first confronted with the concept, the US took an ethnocentric stance on the issue.

Certainly we, as individuals, can and should make personal determinations as to whether or not a different system works for us. However, I think we also have to objectively look at the system (and it's history) before making a sweeping conclusion that it is 'wrong' simply because it is different.
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2008 12:09 pm
@OctoberMist,
I'm gonna have to say that addressing someone's "morals" as opposed to understanding that you cannot make unfounded statements about something being wrong and immoral, serves no new understanding of human behavior.

To have someone who is in a moral suppression judged by another who is participating in the same game (Society), has made many people start to take a look at the big picture and how you yourself are also influenced by these "moral" dilemma's.

Pretty much The idea i think everyone is forgetting here, is that this way of thinking(Political Correctness), is a fairly new way of self realization. To argue the latter, is in my opinion a step back from consciousness.

Weigh the importance and you'll probably find that there are other things that can bother you. This issue seems null and non-progressive.
0 Replies
 
BlueChicken
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 06:42 am
@Pangloss,
Inspired by BMW's comment in "What do you exactly call philosophy" I am asking everyone what they think of the current state of political correctness in speech. Have we made giant leaps by referring to 'him', not as 'him' but as 'him/her' or 'he' as 'he/she/it'? Or has what appears to be a novel idea simply become a convoluted footnote without any real effect?
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 06:46 am
@BlueChicken,
there are use of the word man, which do not specifically refer to the male. So 'mankind' or 'the race of men'. There is of course the word 'man' in 'woman.' I do not see any need to change the way we speak, as it can eaisly seve as a distraction and a cause of tension.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 07:29 am
@avatar6v7,
Posts have been moved into this existing thread for consistency.
0 Replies
 
Salo phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 05:47 am
@Pangloss,
I think political correctness began as a way to curb prejudice, but it has spiralled mainly due to a fear of litigation. People (especially people in any kind of business or organisation) are so terrified of being sued for uttering a word that might be construed as being offensive to somebody, that they create all these ridiculous rules to cover their backs. Once again, money (or the fear of losing it) trumps reason.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Political Incorrectness
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/23/2020 at 07:05:13