andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> Of course as good tolerant liberal Westerners like Chris and Miles and Carrol, we also are a little bit unhappy with appearing intolerant,
Historically established perspectives are, willy-nilly, the grounds of what we call "ethical judgments." Slavery was _not_ immoral in 73 bce (date of the Spartacus insurrection). Not even the slaves thought it was immoral. They merely preferred not to be slaves themselves. Slavery _was_ immoral by 1770s (when Samuel Johnson proposed a toast to the next slave insurrection in the west indies).
Where moral judgments become counter-productive is when they are applied not to practices but to individuals separated in space and time. Take the matter of female genital mutilation. I have no hesitation in saying that fighting to suppress that practice is inseparable from progressive politics (and that anyone on the left anywhere who denies this is a less trustworthy comrade for that reason). But I think for those on this list to pronounce pompously that those individuals involved in the practice of genital mutilation are "immoral," is precisely that, pompous and silly. Not one woman will ever be saved from the practice by such pomposity; only the lbo-poster so pronouncing will feel much more virtuous her/himself. Big deal.
I think such moral egoism interferes with political solidarity and to that extent aids and abets the continuation of female genital mutilation.
Carrol