Devil's advocate..

[Minimalist]

What I meant is that in islam they use the shariah as a political, financial and judicial framework, as well as religious.

I think your mistake is in thinking that there is a difference.


This is a 8th century tribal culture with automatic weapons.


(Much like the American south.)

[lifesagift]

Minimalist, I wasn't making a point, more qualifying the question... but I agree with you totally, a medieval mentality with modern weaponry !

[DramaQueen]

Muslims seem to be like an amalgamation of the negative traits of the Southern Baptists and the Amish

[Raven]

"What I meant is that in islam they use the shariah as a political, financial and judicial framework, as well as religious."
Ah, yes! The "one size fits all" approach. It always works so very, very well. Guess that is why that part of the world is so bloody unlivable. Filter everything through the skein of religion so that you can't see anything clearly. That is always a good way to do things. I, for one, will be most happy when these folks have their own long overdue age of enlightenment. They'll be a lot better off.

[lifesagift]

Again you missed my point... I was re-defining the question.

In terms of what you say, I agree totally.

[Angrboda]

Let me give it a shot.

1. You assume that value system A is as deeply ingrained and arbitrary as value system B.
2. Therefore, there is no way to determine which is more right.
3. Without such a determination, it'd be wrong to impose one system over another.

In argument no.3 you have given a condition for determining which is more "right" - the condition being, without a clear determination of which is more right, the right thing to do is not to impose one over other.

I gave no such condition. The condition you propose is a completely separate question from whether one system is more morally right than another. The only absolute moral law which I would acknowledge offhand is that might makes right. Furthermore, you cannot examine the value of one maxim in isolation from the whole.

Applying this at individual level, we can conclude that it'd be wrong to impose an arbitrary value system upon an individual. So, a political system that ensures that such an imposition won't occur would be more right. So, while the two systems maybe regarded as arbitrary at an individual level (they may not be, but that is a different discussion), at a political level, one comes out as a clear winner.

Since you haven't established this to begin with, and, it seems like a rather arbitrary chunk pulled from your own values, the rest does not in any sense follow. And while I would agree that political right and moral right are related, you can't simply juxtapose one upon the other and hope for it always to apply. There are additional factors in play. And finally, all political systems impose themselves arbitrarily on those who are governed, so there is no such unimposing system to turn to for relief; you have erected a utopian alternative which does not exist save for those places where anarchy rules, and not even then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then it is also an "arbitrary chunk" from your own, of course (or do you feel that your statements do not contain such an implication?).

[Angrboda]

Then it is also an "arbitrary chunk" from your own, of course (or do you feel that your statements do not contain such an implication?).

I don't understand your question. You'll have to spell it out.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that Genk was actually trying to establish that third criteria. Your statements on the matter would seem to imply that it is one which you are using as a metric. Where else could any argument to this effect proceed from?

[Angrboda]

I don't think that Genk was actually trying to establish that third criteria. Your statements on the matter would seem to imply that it is one which you are using as a metric. Where else could any argument to this effect proceed from?

Genkaus introduced that third criteria as something he thought I was implying, from which he tried to argue that it could serve as a wedge to differentiate between better and worse political systems. I don't accept that as a necessary metric. Where and when it might serve as one depends on a lot of things. It's not an arbitrary standard that I would endorse as an absolute law. Moreover, the only political system in which it applies absolutely seems to be one that neither exists in a pure form, nor seems to be a very effective political system where it approximates it.

There is the political platitude that the government which governs least, governs best. I think this is ultimately where Genkaus was headed. However the government that governs the least is no government at all. I think the implied meaning of this platitude is that the government which does the least beyond that which it necessarily should do, governs best. So the best government is one that does the least without sacrificing any essential goods. And that leads us back to the horn of the dilemma, as what are essential goods is a matter of values. And that brings us right back to where we started from.