I can only tolerate cultural relativism up to the point where some cultural traits threaten the very basis of that relativism.

Sounds like Clarence Darrow, who I believe said, “The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance.”

I have never heard of Mr Darrow before but I do know that most secular western democracies are facing real dilemmas over the extent of cultural tolerance.

Take for example the absurd doctrine in my country call multiculturalism.
I’ve heard America described as a giant melting pot but here in Australia it’s more like a salad bowl with a low fat dressing poured over the ingredients.

Re: Cultural Relativism

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]

Should immigrants

Legeal or illegal?

mckenzievmd wrote:

Should immigrants

Legeal or illegal?

Can’t say as I think it really matters from the point of view of the original question, which was getting at the degree to which one tolerates a variety of viewpoints or believes true values/morals to be universal, and whether one feels obliged/free to impose one’s cultural ideas on others.  The reason for raising the issue of immigrants was that many people seem to feel geographic/nation-state boundaries matter in terms of whether or not it is right to impose values by coercion or force, so I was asking if people felt this factor influenced how they felt. A pure cultural relativist would say it is never appopriate since all values are subjective, whereas a pure absolutist would say truth is truth and either feel comfortable with coercion or not regardless of whether it was practiced within or outside the boudnaries of a country of dominant culture. So feel free to answer the original question either for both classes of immigrants together or for each separately if you feel legal status is relevant.

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]

mckenzievmd wrote:

Should immigrants

Legeal or illegal?

Can’t say as I think it really matters from the point of view of the original question, which was getting at the degree to which one tolerates a variety of viewpoints or believes true values/morals to be universal, and whether one feels obliged/free to impose one’s cultural ideas on others.  The reason for raising the issue of immigrants was that many people seem to feel geographic/nation-state boundaries matter in terms of whether or not it is right to impose values by coercion or force, so I was asking if people felt this factor influenced how they felt. A pure cultural relativist would say it is never appopriate since all values are subjective, whereas a pure absolutist would say truth is truth and either feel comfortable with coercion or not regardless of whether it was practiced within or outside the boudnaries of a country of dominant culture. So feel free to answer the original question either for both classes of immigrants together or for each separately if you feel legal status is relevant.

From the viewpoint of cultural ideas I tend to lean towards relativism. I see no difference between praying once a week or 5 times a day (it’s all goofy to me but I’m leaving a strict value judgment out of this).

Now, on the issue of using force that’s different I think. It’s the “use of force” that implies a wholly different argument and approach to law and ethics. I am not of the persuasion that legal immigrants should be denied any freedoms that naturalized citizens enjoy (the office of presidency maybe but I’m copping out and not defending that here).

I would argue that illegal immigrants should not have a right to vote for instance. Deportation is not even out of the question either.