The Limits of Pluralism

Nick Gillespie | June 8, 2004

Via Arts & Letters Daily comes this interesting review of Why Do Men Barbecue?, a new book by Richard Shweder that makes a limited case for tolerating female circumcision and other "barbaric" practices.

The reviewer, Tom Morton, frames the issue well:

The further we expand the boundaries of behaviour we consider �less than human�, the greater the risk that we will come to consider certain categories of human beings also less than human, and thus undeserving of our �unconditional respect�, in Raimond Gaita�s trenchant and powerful phrase. However controversial some of his conclusions, Richard Shweder�s appeal for moral pluralism should provoke us to think more deeply about some of these questions.

Whole thing here.

A while back, Julian Sanchez blogged about the German cannibal case that speaks to these issues (and is mentioned in Morton's review).

If the limits of pluralism floats your boat, check out this Reason review of Stanley Fish's The Trouble with Principle.

Update: Circumcision is now spelled correctly! Missing link to story put in!

Comments

|6.8.04 @ 1:09AM|#

The world of Dilbert, where I'm forced to spend 40 hours a week, has enough barbaric pratices for me to handle. I don't have the time nor energy nor vacation time to persuade a cannibal to change his diet.

And, if I'm not willing to patrol the world, I sure don't want my tax money to pay for such exercises.

|6.8.04 @ 1:20AM|#

re: Fish

Deconstructionists are only useful to the extent that they demonstrate the value ladenness of ideas previously thought to be rational. It is not shocking to say that the assertion "libertarianism is right," is subject to differing interpretations based on values.

Reason supports values only when we analyze which ideas reflect which values. Rational arguments are made that thus and so is "liberal", and the rest of us can use reason to critique the internal consistency of the argument. Reason helps us not one whit when your preferred value doesn't match mine. If a fellow believes that equality IS the highest good and to hell with liberty, there is very little we can discuss.

Hypocrisy is mislabeled by Fish. To say that I value X and value Y means that I must make a compromise when both are not achievable. That I choose to reduce X does not make me a hypocrite concerning X. Hypocrisy is the act of claiming to value X pre-eminently while always acting to reduce it. Reason is important in weeding out this kind of hypocrite.

If we ever get to a place where modern liberals flat out say, "Liberty is always subordinate to The Public Good as we define it," our arguments from principle will be done. The only arguments that can follow are those from utility. Fortunately for all you non-consequentialists out there, we are a long way from anything like a broad admission of statism.

|6.8.04 @ 1:37AM|#

The most interesting thing about this post is that Nick Gillespie refreshingly (and properly) wrote that "Julian Sanchez blogged about..." In the post immediately below, Jesse Walker succumbed to the annoying tendency of using "blog" as a transitive verb. ("Somehow we've neglected to blog the Bush administration's...")

"BLOG" IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE, A TRANSITIVE VERB.

One does not "blog" something. One blogs ABOUT something. Sure, I'm being a pedantic dickhead right now, but precision in writing is important. Language is fluid, and evolves to help us communicate efficiently. That's fine. But "blog" as a transitive verb needs to be taken behind the barn and shot before it gets further out of hand.

Jesse Walker|6.8.04 @ 1:55AM|#

Blog you, Sam.

|6.8.04 @ 1:58AM|#

You're just mad cuz I blogged yo mama.

|6.8.04 @ 2:24AM|#

I wonder if Stanley Fish is related to Albert Fish, the serial killer/cannibal from the early 20th century.

Just curious.

|6.8.04 @ 2:25AM|#

"BLOG" IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE, A TRANSITIVE VERB

I find few things quite as bizarre as people trying to be linguistic prescriptivists about terms that have been in popular usage for all of three years. I'd say it's way too soon to come down either way. But to the extent that one usage or another has a stronger claim to correctess, it's pretty obviously the transitive form. Blog, after all, is an abbreviation of "Web log." And the relevant verb form of "log" (to make a note, to enter a record in a log) is transitive: you log an event, you don't log "about" it.

|6.8.04 @ 2:26AM|#

I wonder if Stanley Fish is related to Albert Fish, the serial killer/cannibal from the early 20th century.

Just curious.

|6.8.04 @ 2:41AM|#

The further we expand the boundaries of behaviour we consider �less than human�, the greater the risk that we will come to consider certain categories of human beings also less than human, and thus undeserving of our �unconditional respect�

I wasn't aware that humans were deserving of "unconditional respect" in the first place. Most people accept that there are circumstances in which people not only can be killed, injured, or imprisoned, but *should* be killed, injured, or imprisoned. If, for example, I found a man raping a four-year-old girl, and executed him on the spot, I just can't imagine that I would feel a moment's remorse for it.

I don't have a problem with considering people who take knives to young girl's crotches to be undeserving of the respect I accord to most of the rest of the human race. Be honest, now -- if you heard that some guy had been killed just before he could carve some teenaged girl's clitoris out of her body, would you devote even one second of your life to mourning his death?

|6.8.04 @ 2:47AM|#

That's a fairly solid argument, Julian, and I do agree that time and usage will be the ultimate arbiter of "blog's" appropriateness as a transitive verb.

Still, while you're certainly correct about the etymology of "blog" and its relation to "log," I'd argue that it's not a perfect parallel. "Blogging" is distinct from mere "logging."

Even in the Walker example I cited, it wouldn't fit: "Somehow we've neglected to log the Bush administration's ... ." Clearly Walker is talking about more than merely "entering a record." He's talking about the distinct act of blogging, which involves commentary, elaboration, etc.

Really, for me, it's just an ear thing. I don't like the way "I blogged such-and-such" sounds. There's also something forced and precious about it. I've seen others on the Web express similar sentiments, so I know I'm not alone.

|6.8.04 @ 3:13AM|#

"Update: Circumcision is now spelled correctly! Missing link to story put in!"

Thanks for the tres pointed sarcasm there. But I do apologize for coming off so snarky originally (wrong side of the bed and whatnot). I still stand by the spell-check-as-SOP recommendation, though.

|6.8.04 @ 3:24AM|#

Dan is absolutely correct. The issue is how we define those categories of humans not deserving of respect. If we define it as "people engaging in activity X", where X is a horrible crime, then I got no problem with denying respect to some categories of people.

I suspect that the author of the multi-culti sounding phrase may have meant that it is bad to deny some people "unconditional respect" because of their skin color, or because they share some broad affiliation with other folks who are doing bad things. That's right as far as it goes, but to just leave it at that is the worst kind of mush-minded PC hyper-relativism.

|6.8.04 @ 3:38AM|#

I have no problem giving people my unconditional respect, it's the actions they chose to take or not take that I won't respect.

For instance, I have nothing against Hitler, just a large portion of the actions he enganged in.

Jesse Walker|6.8.04 @ 3:39AM|#

Clearly Walker is talking about more than merely "entering a record." He's talking about the distinct act of blogging, which involves commentary, elaboration, etc.

Actually, I was talking about the mere act of noting the story on our blog.

|6.8.04 @ 4:02AM|#

Blogify?

Phil|6.8.04 @ 4:11AM|#

Given the relative popularity of the blogging tool Blogger, I can't get too worked up about the transitive "blog." A blogger is, necessarily, one who blogs.

|6.8.04 @ 4:26AM|#

"A blogger is, necessarily, one who blogs."

The verb "blogs" in your above sentence is intransitive, not transitive.

|6.8.04 @ 4:43AM|#

this was all much easier when we called it wanking.

|6.8.04 @ 4:53AM|#

Do you wank on something, or wank off something?

|6.8.04 @ 5:02AM|#

This thread is oddly timed. Today's New York Times has an article entitled Genital Cutting Showing Signs of Losing Favor in Africa.

|6.8.04 @ 5:08AM|#

I have no problem giving people my unconditional respect, it's the actions they chose to take or not take that I won't respect. For instance, I have nothing against Hitler, just a large portion of the actions he enganged in.

Ok -- what? Unless I'm missing something, you just said that you unconditionally respect Adolf Hitler. What freaky-assed definition of "unconditional respect" are you using?

|6.8.04 @ 6:36AM|#

"If we ever get to a place where modern liberals flat out say, "Liberty is always subordinate to The Public Good as we define it," our arguments from principle will be done."

Most of them are already there, and always have been. That's why libertarian arguments from principle don't work. All of the gains for libertarian ideals have been made on utilitarian arguments - "If we reduce the tax rates, revenue will go up."

Pee Wee|6.8.04 @ 7:10AM|#

J,

I wank off on something. :)

|6.8.04 @ 10:33AM|#

Betwixt and between the wanking and blogging, where are we going with r.e.s.p.e.c.t.?

I mean how is respect carried out?

Respect is a word. What's the deed?

Has anyone else noticed topics need a large dollop of Drano about each twenty posts?

Could twenty posts be the ever-present "strange attractor" of complexity fame?

|6.8.04 @ 12:17PM|#

OK:

1. It's "circumcision". Spell check! Y'all aren't listening. Misspellings look really unprofessional coming from a well-known, paper-published magazine.

2. Why not link directly to the story instead of via A&L's (rather overwhelming) home page?

3. Ain't no MAN gonna tell me that female circumcision should be tolerated, even if the female natives prefer their bits that way. That gets my back up.

|6.8.04 @ 12:38PM|#

We are unfit to comment because we are all products of a patriachal culture infected by the lies of dead white males.

And besides, everyone knows that all cultures are equal.

At least if you went to kollage you due.

|6.9.04 @ 10:17AM|#

Why is cutting up a girl's genitals so bad, and cutting up a baby boy's genitals just peachy?