Tuesday, January 17, 2006

One Man's Diversity is Another Man's Death Sentence

The eminences at Birmingham University have awarded a certain Mohammad Naseem with an Honorary Degree. Check out the story at Drink-Soaked Trotskyite Popinjays for War to see if you think he deserves it.


Anonymous said...

ludicrous! Moral relativity run amok.


Mrs Loveday said...

This is quite unbelievable, but not totally surprising. It appears awards are given to all sorts of people who really don't deserve them, such as entertainers and celebs etc and the people doing real work and making a huge difference to people and their lives are the forgotten ones.
I wonder how many emergency service personnel got individual awards for dealing with the atrocious events relating to the bombings...or were they just awarded to the chiefs in their offices???

Anonymous said...

Quoth D - "ludicrous! Moral relativity run amok."

Quoth Georgie Orwell - "Pacifism is pro-fascist"

Yet the problems here are moral absolutism/fascism.

Perhaps it's a move to discredit him. Have Beeham U's science/philosophy departments recently proven Abrahamic religions to be a load of fluff, perchance?


Carlotta said...


Ahhh...so would you call the diversity dogma a form of moral absolutism? (I think you may well be right, but I hadn't thought of it that way before).

I had previously conceived of diversity as a form of moral relativity, but I do see (now), that moral relativity (with it's emphasis on "tolerance" (which doesn't mean tolerance in the traditional sense at all, but rather the act of failing to apply serious moral judgement to anything), is actually a form of fascism, since if someone fails the diversity test in some way, (however proportionately), oh boy are you in trouble!

Carlotta said...

Mrs Loveday,

Yup...and the cash for titles issue is raising it's head yet again. Apparently Blair's flagship academies are mostly gov't funded but it seems that in order to attract the nominal private funding, peerships et al. are dangled about.

Anonymous said...

"Ahhh...so would you call the diversity dogma a form of moral absolutism?"

I was thinking more of Mr Naseem, that moral relativism - which comes closest to my own position - is open to abuse by moral absolutists as, to go back to Mr Orwell, pacifism (during WW2, at least) was inevitably pro-fascist. But yes, there are some moral relativist absolutists!

Hmm. Should tolerance tolerate intolerance? Poor old tolerance, she seems to be screwed either way.


Carlotta said...

"Should tolerance tolerate intolerance?"

I think not, since when we do this, the conditions, as you suggest, under which tolerance is possible dissolve.

Therefore I would say: push tolerance to the max, and take proportionate action when this principle is threatened.

I often wonder if the act of trying to tolerate the intolerable stems from a misapprehension of what it means to be tolerant. Tolerance should not mean that one suspends moral judgement. It should mean that one puts up with things with which one does not agree (ie: one has made a moral judgement) and rightfully one should do this to the outer limit of that which is possible.

Anonymous said...

I do agree, Carlotta.

To use a family frame of reference instead of the state: it is awful for children to hear one parent (say mum) defending the bullying behaviour of the other, even though she has been humiliated/has a black eye/the children maltreated/threatened. She might excuse him by saying, for example: 'he _is_ your dad', 'he had a hard childhood', 'he's a good man', 'his religion says it's ok', or whatever form of delusion she might use to avoid acting...

Much better if she could walk away from, or if necessary 'fight off' a person who intentionally creates an atmosphere in which good moral values can not survive and the freedom of others is seriously curtailed. At the very least, she should point out that such intolerant, vicious behaviour is morally wrong, and that it reduces the perpetrator to the state of some one who one is obliged to treat as an object (what he does to his victims), and that if she could better solve the problem of leaving she would. Tolerating or defending him is to be no better than him.