Science and Enlightenment: East and West

Re: # 64
You make distinction between religion and culture vividly clear. The question whether human conduct needs guidance of moral rules and what those rules are in our pesent day existence, needs exploring.

Re: # 66
You failed to convince, need an argument I guess.

#63 Posted by malikrashid

Great! I love it down and dirty. So lets take this screwing your dog example and apply it universally. So would my wife like the fact that I am screwing the dog, conversely would I like her being screwed by the dog. Better still, how would I feel the dog servicing my daughter? Keep working through the ramifications of this practice through out society and it becomes quite clear whether it or any other practice is good or bad.

DM:
I'm perhaps not wrong to be confident enough to say that you
were fortunate enough to never attend toataa-mainaa schools in slavelands. Am I also correct in having learned that you were one of pretty high-up civil servant in Ottawa and now in the consulting business.

So may I ask you in all earnestness what kind of perverted pleasure do you get to engage the types who originate from the OFFENCE-Kaalonies and UNCIVIL-lines of Pakistan.

Unless ofcourse you love to yank their tails and whirl them as a discus thrower would just to hear their chiaaaooN & tiaoooons?

waiting with salivated anticipation

#62 religion and culture are all inextricably linked - one could even say they are different aspects of the same thing.

the only difference is the basis for anything that flies in the face of common sense is made in the name of "God" (in case of religious scoundrels) or in the name of "Tradition" (in the case of retrograde scoundrels).

Re: # 61
"if you screwed your dog and everybody else did the same would that result in a better world. "
How would it change anything? For better or for worse?

Re: # 47
The secular/atheist morality of our times is the matured version of ancient and medieval ages. An individual, being responsible for their actions, was preached by religions hence retribution was imposed. Religions however became outdated as their message entailed rules that did not apply in face of the changing society. A non-religious set of rules lead the pluralistic society that we live in. Secularism or atheism of our times is not the same as Genghis Khan's godlessness as the right-wing conservatives present it. Eating meat, wearing fur and equity of wealth distribution are all atheistic subjects that must be judged according to scientific and rational rules of communication. Erich Fromm wrote a book titled "You shall be as gods" analysing this thread of individual will/deliberation/responsibility from the ancient religions till present day. The pro-active view that the rights of others must be observed and accomodated while conducting one's business, is morality of present day but the thought and practise has existed for long.

#50 Posted by dost_mittar

Do unto others …. Is an axiom used in some form or another for at least 2500 years but now that you bring in Kant, I think what he called as the ‘categorical imperative’ perhaps lays enlightened self interest into its best form.

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

In other words no exceptionalism; act only in a manner that if everybody acted the same way the result is good. So lets say you provide alleviation of pain to anybody who is in pain and everybody else did the same would that be good for the world? Similarly taking Bulleya’s example if you screwed your dog and everybody else did the same would that result in a better world. This determination when made by people in a rational manner gives an order to everybody’s ethical barometer.

ellora #55 i dont see how a human rights organization funded by the state can be truly independant.

the real champions of human rights are non-state actors - in Pakistan these being human rights activists like asma jehangir, as well as journalists, and even individuals armed with cell phones. thus, the one you-tube video of the girl being mercilessly beaten in swat was enough to turn the tide of public opinion against the taliban in pakistan. a picture being worth a thousand words. one can only imagine the "inhumanity of man" to one another throughout history before cell phones became prevalent.

tahmed32#57:

It's okay. Happens to the best of us.

it should of course be "not read" in #57.

dost mittar #56 point taken. sorry to have read carefully first time.

tahmed32#54:

I also do not like reminding you again to please read my sentence carefully: "Judiciary is very much a part of the state and, in many countries including India and perhaps also Pakistan, even the human rights organizations are funded by the State.". It's a two-part sentence; the first part re. judiciary applies to all states including Pakistan; it is only the human rights organizations about which I am not sure if they are funded by the Pakistan govt. In both India and Canada, they are funded by the govt. In India, "The National Human Rights Commission was established on 12th October, 1993 under the legislative mandate of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993." In addition to the National Commission, there are also state level human rights commissions funded by state governments both in India and in Canada.

human rights organizations are quintessentially non-state actors.

While it is true the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan is an independent body, the National Human Rights Commission in India is a statutory body jointly funded by the center and the states.

TehsinA #52: very true. it is incredible how much damage is done by not keeping one's true self-interest in mind. instead of harping on fossilized positions that have no bearing on true self-interest.

#51 DM: "and perhaps also Pakistan"

cant get over this "perhaps" when it comes with anything to do with pakistan, dm sahib?? rest assured the supreme court of pakistan is not privately funded. and any doubts of the independence of the judiciary in pakistan should have been laid to rest by the events of the past couple of years.

"even the human rights organizations are funded by the State"

i dont enjoy correcting you - but please think before you write. human rights organizations are quintessentially non-state actors.