Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

I said: "we all agree very very much that infant genital mutilation is immoral and that we shouldn't do it to our children....

The second part in italic above is linked to the first part. It's what the first part means in practice. If moral sense is a guide for our own actions, then it follows that when person A deems action X immoral, it means that person A should refrain from action X.

It does NOT mean that person B should act based on person A's moral sense. Person B should act based on her own moral sense, not person A's.

Therefore, everyone here expressing moral outrage at FMG should be expected to not do it to their daughters, period.

And if they are gender neutral and principled, they should also oppose the circumcision of their male offsprings...

 
It's not illegal to be judgemental. But it's not helpful either. It's like trying to uncork a bottle with a screwdriver: wrong tool, poor results.

 
This is not (I believe) a mainstream Judaic teaching but it was a big part of Jesus' message: Judge not, least you be judged. You're not in other people's shoes. In this, he came at a strong variance with the budding rabinical form of Judaism, which is all about judging. Later Christians would of course judge aplenty. But somehow the basic message that one can only   morally judge oneself (and even then, with temperance) and that forgiveness is better than condemnation remained in the Christian culture. Hence also Catholic guilt: it's about judging oneself.

Olivier's point was that our moral sense should be used to judge ourselves; not others. I essentially agree with this but would restate it as: our moral sense should be used to judge ourselves; far more than others, because I think there are legitimate reasons to make moral judgments about people. Of course this doesn't mean each of these judgments needs to be loudly pronounced in a large crowd or even just to the person being judged.

It seems to be, as well, that people tend to view judging other people as somehow wrong (even thought they do it all the time). Calling someone "judgmental" is not flattery. So I am wondering where this comes from. "Judge not lest ye be judged thyself" is a pretty often quoted line from the Bible and I suspect there must be other similar lines within it.My question is whether our Western aversion to judging others is a product of our Judeo-Christian origins or somehow more innate.

As for your points, I can't speak for anyone else, let alone all conservatives, but I don't believe liberals are inherently bigoted, and I don't believe conservatives are free of this sin. It's, unfortunately, far too easy to generalize when one is on one side of the river throwing rocks and feces at the tribe on the other side, but I try (and not too successfully) to avoid doing so about liberals, in part, because it annoys me when they do it about conservatives.

There are ideological (although perhaps partisan is a better choice of word) positions which can resonate with bigoted people, but that doesn't mean they are based on bigotry.

Controlling immigration is an example. A proponent of this need not be conservative or liberal, although it does tend more to be a position of the former. Reasonable and supportable arguments can be made, and have been made, for clamping down on illegal immigration that have nothing to do with bigotry. More than once I have discussed this with liberals who will acknowledged the validity of the underlying premise, but had differences with how it should be achieved. Folks who are bigoted towards Latinos are more than likely to be in favor of this position, but that doesn't make the position one of bigotry.

The impact of Christian fundamentalists on our society is another. Again you don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to find this problematic, but here liberals outnumber conservatives in believing it to be so. I happen to believe not only in evolution but that pseudo-science of any kind should not be taught to our children (referencing creationism is another matter) A great many liberals approach this from a reasonable and supportable position, but the fact remains that many also exhibit bigotry towards Christians.

If you have a character that allows for bigotry, it doesn't matter what your ideology is, you will find a way to express it. The common liberal refrain that all conservatives are not bigots (or racists) but all bigots are conservatives is simply, and demonstrably not true.

You are right that it is currently a societal problem that most (not all) conservatives think poorly of liberals in general and most (not all) liberals think poorly of conservatives in general. At the same time I have liberal family members and friends who I don't think poorly of because of their ideology, and the same is true in reverse. The problem, IMO, is that we live now in the Age of The Internet and rather than it being a means to connect people from all around the world (as initially touted) it has become a means to reduce our personal interactions and drive us into echo chambers that reinforce positions that need to be challenged.

Of course self-reflection that leads to admitting prejudice, and bias and questioning, from time to time, all of your beliefs is a good thing, and I think a lot more people than we might imagine do this. Unfortunately I think that number is shrinking because life in an echo chamber (or bubble) makes it easy to avoid doing something that is essentially difficult.

Having said all of this, the person described in the OP, IMO, is fundamentally bigoted, regardless of her ideology, and not simply ignorant . It doesn't require anyone to call her out on it, although an attempt to discuss it with her might be helpful. It is a generally liberal position (particularly, but not exclusively, among young liberals) that it is a good thing to call out bigots wherever they raise their ugly heads. Great in the abstract but first of all it's of little value, because if it ever was, it merely led to bigots going underground, and now, thank again to the Internet, bigots have their own echo chambers and have been empowered. Secondly and most importantly the justice warriors doing this have gone way, way overboard and see the most mundane and innocent comment or act as a sign of bigotry. They use what should be a righteous mechanism used sparingly when obviously appropriate as an ideological club for bullies. They are far more likely to create sympathy for bigots than condemnation outside of their bubble.

If Milo Yannapopodoplous is truly a bigot (and I don't think he is anymore than the rest of us) their extreme reaction to him has empowered him, not silenced him. They forced his publisher to withdraw his book deal and so he self-published and is selling his book to great numbers who, if nothing else, don't want to see the mob trample free speech.

My view is that we each should focus primarily upon ourselves and reduce or eliminate whatever bigotry we have allowed ourselves. After that we should avoid associating with and in anyway supporting obvious bigots and if we are up to it we should try and persuade one or more of them why they are wrong to think as they do.

We do not (despite what the hyperbolic few in the forum would claim) live in a nation where there is a major political force fueled by bigotry. We are not in the same place Germans were during the rise of the Nazis. Should we ever be in such a place then my view on how to deal with bigots would change and expand.

Because action X is immoral. So person A (and a lot of us in this thread) have used our moral sense to identify an action, we would not practice, to be immoral.



Of course that goes without saying, but "should" and "will" are not the same. If a society views the practice as immoral and outlaws it, the immigrants who refrain from it from fear of legal consequences will not, more than likely, have done so because they were converted to that society's sense or morality. If they defy the law and practice the immoral act, not only are they criminals but, arguably, immoral in the eyes of the society which they have chosen to become a part of.

Intent is woven throughout most Western legal systems. The more the intent, the greater the crime and punishment. If there is a moral or amoral way to commit an immoral act, the punishment is likely to be less.

My point here, and elsewhere, is that there are legitimate reasons to make moral judgement about others. They need not be expressed or acted upon beyond a decision not to associate with the person.





Clearly I didn't mean in a legal sense. And your use of the term judgmental supports my point about our aversion to judging. I agree that our moral sense should be used primarily to judge ourselves, but I don't believe we should feel restricted from using it to judge others (Not sure whether or not you are arguing against this, but it seems you are)




You're right but "Judeo-Christian" is the common term to describe the religious heritage of Western culture. Whether Jewish or Christian, the question I have is whether the aversion to judging others developed because of original religious teaching or something else. Personally I think it has it's roots in Christianity and not the Enlightenment (or any other intellectual "movement"), and you would seem to at least agree that it didn't predate Christianity by asserting ancient Jewish culture had no problem with judging.

It's not so simple. Often we have to chose betwen two "evils". For instance, it's bad to lie right? But sometimes it's the only right thing to do... Moral choices are rarely between clear good and clear evil, it's about the relative badness of things, often.

In any case, to consider something immoral is to consider it literally below you. It does not mean you will always think so, whatever the circumstances, nor does it mean "the immoral act is below everybody else." It just mean it's below YOU.


I agree.


"Acted upon" is the key in your sentence. If you find yourself in a position to do something about an isue you care about, eg FGM or slavery or the environment, do it. Use your sense of moral outrage judiciously to act, channel it productively. But then, that's again a case of YOUR moral values informing YOUR actions.

Similarly, you DO NEED to judge the people you make business with, and you'd better be able to spot a scoudrel if you see one, so that you can avoid being conned by him. Informing your actions again.

But to express moral outrage and do nothing else serves little purpose. It's not necessarily the moral thing to do. If conscious Nigeriens raise awareness about FGM, that's excellent. I have a Mauritanian friend who did jail time protesting slavery. The law said he was wrong, but that's the way to go if he wants to change the society he lives in.

But that people would get all angry about issues they can do, or chose to do, nothing about, that strikes me at best as a waste of moral energy.

The entire subject doesn't lend itself to simple assertions, but it can be simply said that the actions of others can be judged immoral.




I'll take it a step further and use myself as the subject. If I find something like FGM to be immoral, I have an obligation to its victims and to myself to respond in some way to it. If all I am truly capable of is expressing outrage then that is sufficient, but if I have the means to support an organization that is trying through persuasion and not coercion to end the practice, and doing so will not undermine my other moral obligations (e.g. feeding my kids) than to limit my response to an expression of outrage, is not acting morally.

Like millions of others, I know I do this all of the time. I donate a fair bit of money to what I consider moral causes, but not as much as I am financially able to; and still meet my other moral obligations. This lack of consistency in applying the moral calculus for a response to immoral acts is what leads to my usual reluctance to judge anyone's morality or lack thereof, and I'm quite sure many others as well.

(Interestingly enough it has been shown that conservatives in general give more money to charity than liberals, and I suspect this is because the latter looks, largely, to the State to address immoral acts (with their tax dollars). Whether or not this meets our moral obligations is a subject for a separate discussion)




I agree that if one does nothing but expressing outrage over perceived immoral acts one's response to these acts is largely useless. Talk is cheap, and if that's all one is willing to commit, when one can clearly do more there is very little moral energy involved. Still, this doesn't let me off the hook for not doing as much as I can.

Expressing opposition to an injustice is not a waste of energy.

Agreed, but if that's all one does when one can do much more, it's not very admirable.

Any time someone speaks out against injustice, that is admirable. It is good to create a dialogue in any forum possible, and to speak in a concise and measured manner to rebut defenders of the injustice. Any avenue used to bring the injustice to light is profitable.

Abortion is a pretty grave injustice... because it takes an innocent life.

If Glennn doesn't speak out against abortion, or worse yet defends abortion, does that negate the argument that she is making? She claimed earlier that abortion was an issue of convenience... but she is not looking at it from the perspective of the baby involved.

If Person A believes that an act is moral, and Person B believes that an act is injust... whose judgment prevails. If morality is absolute, one of these people is absolutely wrong?

If Person A and Person B are equally smart, and equally sincere and equally passionate, who get's to make the judgement. Would it be possible for Person A to accept the possibility that she might be wrong? Should she question that possibility?

That is the problem with absolutism. People who believe that they are absolutely right will be wrong half the time... and they will never know it.

Not the one holding a knife and cutting the clitoris off a girl; that's for sure.

Abortion often involves a knife... and the result is that a life is terminated. That is also for sure.

Again you are trying to compare a situation in which a female chooses to have a procedure, and a situation in which a female doesn't choose to have a procedure. You've heard me say that if woman who wants to have her clitoris cut off, let her have at it.

You are trying to make the point that if I think a woman has a say over her own body when it comes to abortion, then cutting the clitoris off girls is a legitimate practice that shouldn't be judged. There is no such connection between the two.

Quite the contrary. The mother isn't risking very much either way, there is a 9 month pregnancy... but after that the baby can be given up for adoption.

In an abortion, the knife isn't for the pregnant woman... the knife is for the baby. It is the baby that is being terminated in an abortion. He or she has no choice.

Ah, so a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy is a murderer?

Is a woman who wants to circumcise her daughter a barbarian? I don't think that name calling helps here, we are talking about about how to judge injustice.

Glennn the point is that when you have an absolute morality... sometimes you are the prosecution sometimes you are the defendant. You seem much more comfortable as prosecution.

Hopefully you accept the fact that you aren't always right... at some point what you think is "justice" will actually be injustice.

You speak as if you are absolutely sure you are right, but other people are equally sure that they are right. Unless you think you are better than them, you have to admit that you will be wrong at least part of the time.

I will let you apply a descriptor that is apt for one who advocates cutting off the clitoris of her daughter.

Ok (do you see how this goes both ways) and likewise I will let you apply a descriptor for one who advocates killing and cutting out an unborn baby. You seem to have trouble recognizing that there are more than one side to these issues.

Maybe that's because I am absolutely sure that it is wrong to cut the clitoris off girl for no good reason. It's called mutilation.