A number of posters here on Wordforge express fairly regularly the opinion that the way to deal with terrorism is to totally destroy pretty much all the Muslim countries in the Mideast, or even beyond. That includes wiping out a large percentage of their populations, not even necessarily as collateral damage: That is either the goal, or a very acceptable side effect. A number of other posters, of which I admit I am part, consider that to be not only unacceptable, but highly immoral: The mass killing of millions of human beings, just because they happen to be part of the same religion as a few thousand extremists who have no respect for others, is pretty much the same thing as what the terrorists are doing, if not worse. But I've been thinking about this. Not that I'm about to change my mind on whether or not nuking the entire Mideast is a good thing or not, but I've been mulling over the philosophical implications of my position. And that has led me to a few questions: 1) Since it seems fairly obvious that the proposal is not nearly as bad if they are not really people, the same as we are, how do we prove that Muslims are humans? In particular, how do we do it without using the petitio principii fallacy (commonly called "begging the question") where you introduce the desired conclusion (a definition of humanity that necessarily includes Muslims) as part of the argument? Such an approach would mean that we are basing our opinion ultimately on an unprovable philosophical assumption. 2) If we can't do that, then the only real recourse we have left is simply an appeal to the opinion of the majority. But that, it seems to me, is worse than reasoning on the basis of an unprovable philosophical assumption. If Muslims are to be defined as human simply because a majority think they are, that clearly implies that if a majority doesn't think they are human, then they should not be considered as such. That, in turn, would imply that back when a majority did not consider blacks to be truly human, it was proper to practice slavery, because they weren't human until a majority of Westerners decided they were. I don't see any philosophical hope in such an approach. Does anyone else? 3) If the only proof we have that Muslims are human is based on an unprovable philosophical assumption, does that give us valid grounds for condemning those who act contrary to our assumptions? If all I can say is, "Well it seems obvious (to me at least) that they are human," but can't actually prove it without begging the question, do I have the right to say that those who would do otherwise are truly wrong, and shouldn't have the right to act on their unprovable philosophic assumptions?
What has this really got to do with Muslims? The same argument could be made with any other group in their place.
I haven't noticed anyone seriously suggesting otherwise. Debating the use of nuclear weapons isn't the same as denying that Muslims are in fact human. Kinda clunky linkage here, is it religion that's the issue or taxonomy? Determining who is and who isn't a Homo sapien isn't terribly difficult. I'd say we can indeed recognize our fellow humans. More than that, it's pretty darn easy, we're the apes wearing clothes! Again, I disagree that's the only proof or even legitimate proof, and I haven't noticed anyone seriously suggesting Muslims are a different species.
Personally I think the Muslim 'threat' has been overplayed. If the western world wasn't dependent on Arabian oil thus ensuring constant political meddling in those lands, I doubt there'd be as much as hostility as there currently is. Had they no oil we'd have left them the fuck alone and vice-versa.
Oh, there'd still be plenty of conflict. In London an Imam has been removed for supporting evolution and calling for greater civil rights for women. 50 protesters showed up to his last sermon, handing out pamphlets calling for his execution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution
You get death threats in America from anti abortionists. Does that mean they are EXACTLY the same as 'teh evil muslims'?
This is a very mixed bag. On the one hand what you say has some validity. The flip side of the coin is that without the oil they'd all be poverty stricken, and as we see it is the poorer people that are attracted to radical Islam. A poorer region would be even more radical. On the OP, thus is not about Muslims being human or not. I view it more akin to the Japanese in WWII. Yes, there are differences, but the basic premise is the same. Japan was out to win and kill however many Americans it took to do that. Not every Japanese was evil or wanted to that. Nevertheless, Japan was the enemy. I view Islam in the sane way, with the radicals being the truly evil ones we need to defeat.
This appears to be the only attempt, so far, to address the issue. You are basically saying that "human" means "the apes wearing clothes." Okay, how can you prove that that definition has any philosophic validity? IOW, how do you avoid the problem of it being merely an unprovable philosophic assumption? (And what does it say about various tribes that don't wear clothes?)
Stop wheeling out this tired canard - the threat from whack job Christians is several orders of magnitude lower than the possibility of some muzzers looking to take advantage of the 72 virgins offer. Please feel free to disabuse me as I can only think of one abortion doctor death in the last five years, versus more than the odd one from the adherents of the desert bandit's cult.
True, since liberalism, as a rule, tends to oppose natural human proclivities at nearly every turn. On the other hand, it also encourages a select set of the baser human urges.
Unfortunately, we can't blanket the Middle East in nukes without destroying our oil supplies. But as Camren argues, without the oil there wouldn't be much conflict between us and them in the first place. We could let them oppress and slaughter each other in peace.
OK then, how about the relative threat from muslim extremists and Irish republican dissidents? The last time the 'terrooorrr threat' level was raised here it wasn't because of muslims....
Well I'm hardly a vociferous advocate of Pikeys either, and to go back to the original question, I regard adherents of Wahhabism as inhuman, just as I do Marxists like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. And, as abhorrent as I find the IRA and all its variations, theirs is/was a tangible political goal. Fundies, whether Muslim or Methodist, are an altogether different breed. Which brings us back to your oft repeated counter about anti-abortion activists, they are infinitely less likely to self-detonate next to me or my friends as we go about our lives in London. And I'm all about being un'sploded.
Go on being terrified if that makes you happy. If I was to list the 10,000 things that are actually a danger to me I'd probably list terrorism somewhere in the 5-6,000's if not lower. I know the government and the news agenda wants people to think differently and that muslims are literally hiding under your bed waiting to rape you, but I just don't buy it.
Too general of a question. Now, muslim terrorists, those are prime examples of humanity. Right up there with every other shitbag faction taking pride in it's ability to blow up schools and movie theaters. Also child-raping priests, followers of the good Reverend Phelps, Somali pirates, south American socialists, you get the drift. Pure humanity. Nicely done, God.
No, it's a very specific question: Set up a demonstration that Muslims are human, without having to beg the question or simply appeal to the opinion of the majority.
I'd attempt to do so by quibbling with your point (1). If you disallow a definition of human that "begs the question" as part of the answer, then what definition of human are you using in the question?
Okay, how can you demonstrate that that is a valid test? If I understand correctly, in the books the test is indeed based on an unproven philosophical assumption.
Objectively and empirically, they are human because the double helixes say so. Drowning somewhere in the bog of academic philosophical wank, they are human because the stench of humanity taints them as badly as anyone else.
Good point. I would say: any definition at all that we can agree on when we are debating whether they are "sub-human" or not. In logic, you can give any definition to any term you want, so we could choose to define "human" as "having two legs and driving a Mercedes," if we want. But I don't think that would be a very useful definition. Besides, such a "definition" would still be a priori. I would like a definition that is a little more objective, based on a testable principle (as opposed to yielding a testable principle; the "having two legs and driving a Mercedes" definition does that much) and thus would be begging the question.
And I would say that it's up to you to provide that definition. Until you do, your question is effectively meaningless and cannot be answered.
