Culture and traditions are things that shouldn't always be preserved. They need to be able to compete with other cultures and traditions; otherwise they just exist as 'welfare' cultures that don't actually serve their people.
That being said, immigrant ethnic enclaves that are often outcomes of high-immigration policies exemplify this to the greatest degree - shielding their culture from the outside influences of their host country and preventing cultural competition and assimilation. So it works both ways.
I'm making judgements on moral oughts, not proposing that we force people to abandon their traditions.
As in, people should be open and willing to give and take traditions/behaviors from other cultures, but forcing them to do so has high costs that make such an action unjustifiable.
No, you are not making any judgements on moral oughts, you are imposing your idea of what is good and bad and saying they should follow your ideas and abandon their ideas of what is good and bad because your idea of what is good and bad is right and therefore they are wrong.
Last edited by Freighter; 2017-07-08 at 05:50 PM.
There are two parts to your characterization of my argument. The first is that I'm creating a moral system, and the second is that I'm saying that people should follow that moral system. The second part is exactly what I described, in your own words: making judgements on moral oughts.
You can disagree with my moral system, but that's a separate argument and I don't think you would find a lot of traction arguing against the idea that people should be open to new ideas and ready to abandon the old when it becomes clear that they are no longer useful.
This is likely one of the most salient points in the whole discussion of immigration and refugees.
One of the chief concerns raised about an influx of Muslim immigrants is that it's 'cultural suicide'; but this is an assumption. There's no question of why that is the case; moreover, even if it were then the question becomes what about Western culture makes it so unattractive and noncompetitive versus Islamic culture that Western culture must effectively be kept in a greenhouse?
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
No, I'm proposing a moral tenet on the basis of widely accepted ideals, and then extrapolating to a case study.
That is a very far thing from saying 'you are wrong and I am right, and nothing will convince me otherwise'. In fact, that's ironically the exact opposite of the content of my argument, which is that people should be open and accepting of new ideas if they are superior to old ideas.
- - - Updated - - -
Sure. Then make the argument that these particular aspects of these cultures are detrimental. What you're saying here has nothing to do with my argument and betrays your illogical preconceptions of me.
Japan has labor problems because they've had a horrendous family and work policy for decades, where people are force s to work 24/7 with little to no vacation and no time for family.
Letting in asylum seekers like the Syrians is a hilariously laughable suggestion, if this is what you meant. Their two cultures are utterly incompatible.
They could however let in other Asian asylum seekers and westerners. But again, their policies are completely garbage, making getting a family and kids very difficult. They also seem completely unable to self reflect, leading to very little constructive changes, because nobody want some to insult someone else or intrude on them.