The Qur’an says it’s ok to beat your wife for imagined infractions such as “fearing infidelity”. It says that a woman must have sex with her husband wherever and whenever he wants, effectively denying that it is possible for a husband to rape his wife. It teaches that “Men are in charge of women…” The Hadith says, “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”
Cultural diversity is a deeply held value for liberals, but how far does it go? It seems as though marriage is a form of slavery among fundamentalist Muslims. How can a western democracy cope with this?
Posted: July 8th 2010
brian thomson www
The ethics of a majority of people in a society become law: you could call law “formal ethics”, if you like. Since, in a Western country, the ethics of the majority is against enslavement, this becomes a legal question, as already noted. With laws come other issues, which some police forces call “detection” and “enforcement”.
So, how do you detect something that happens mostly in the home? In the USA you have the 4th Amendment protecting homes against unlawful searches, and there are similar laws in other Western countries. In other words, we trust people to act sanely and lawfully within their own homes, and assume that a home is where someone wants to be, by choice, not a prison. There are laws against spousal abuse, and (it seems to me) an unwritten assumption that leaving is always a possibility, but (of course) enslavement in the home prevents someone from leaving if they wanted to.
So I think the problem boils down to one of detection. Law against enslavement may already exist, but they can’t be enforced if it can’t be detected. Police forces are (rightly) not allowed to go snooping on people or on “fishing trips” in their homes. I don’t see an easy way around this short of education in the ways of Western societies: we don’t stick our noses in to your private business, but that’s because we trust people to do the right things in their homes. The alternative is to have Big Brother watching your every move at all times, because people can’t be trusted to treat each other fairly.
Posted: July 14th 2010
bitbutter www
On paper, democracy is mob rule, and in reality it’s closer to rule by special interest groups. As such, it’s a very poor guard against behaviour we judge to be anti-social. A democratic state will 'cope’ with behavior we think is undesirable – by enforcing laws that forbid that behaviour – only to the extent that those who disagree with us remain the minority in our geographic region.
When considering behavior I think is unacceptable (rape, beatings) I count on there being enough common ground with the person I’m talking with to be able to appeal to shared preferences as a starting point; I often make the simplifying assumption that we’d both prefer a state of affairs in which net human suffering is minimised, and net human wellbeing is maximised (however we choose to define wellbeing).
In terms of our attitude towards law and the legitimate use of force, I believe the consistent application of the non-aggression principle is our best chance at satisfying a preference for maximised wellbeing and minimised suffering.
The non-aggression principle unambiguously outlaws beatings and rape (whether they occur within marriage or not), and sanctions the use of force against their perpetrators.
According to the non-aggression principle, slavery is to be outlawed because a slave can only be kept while the 'slave owner’ threatens to initiate force against them if they try to leave.
Since democracy was mentioned in the question I think it’s also relevant to note that the non-aggression principle also renders illegitimate any law who’s enforcement demands the initiation of force rather than the use of retaliatory force. In modern democracies, the vast majority of legislative decrees are of this nature.
Posted: July 13th 2010
SmartLX www
When two moral or ethical guides are in stark contrast, like Islamic teachings on women and Western efforts towards gender equality, it’s not productive to have the two systems battle it out by themselves because each is simply wrong according to the other.
In order to arbitrate you need a third system, and a fourth or more if available. In this case, obvious candidates are international human rights standards and the basic principle of minimising of harm to human beings. Islamic teachings come off very badly according to either of these, a fact which can be used to support the rival Western laws and ethics. In contrast, what systems outside of Islam could be used to support the Islamic view? Not many, apart from overzealous cultural sensitivity.
The thing about many religious moral codes, especially modern Sharia, is that they’re not used to being seriously challenged and having to defend themselves because they’ve been protected by theocracies for most of their existence. When they try to spread beyond those theocracies, they find themselves insupportable by normal means.
Posted: July 8th 2010
logicel
Western democracies can cope with this by using legal means. Unfortunately, because of the undeserved respect for religion, crimes committed under religious auspices often go undetected and ignored, regardless of the religion.
The answer is that religious beliefs do not make anyone above the law. For example there is/was enough evidence to arrest priests who raped and tortured children. The legal authorities in places like Ireland enabled such abuse by deferential respect given to priests and their ilk.
Rather then respecting cultural diversity, it is kowtowing to religious beliefs, sheltering and privileging them from the law, that is the problem.
It makes me cringe that parents are not taken to task by the law for keeping their children ignorant of reality, such as the age of the earth, not to mention terrifying them with tales of hell, damaging them emotionally and mentally for life.
It equally makes me cringe that in certain Western countries there are Jewish and Sharia courts to decide on family disputes, etc.
Posted: July 8th 2010