Multiculturalism in Robinson Crusoe
Another book review.
I took a break from the overtly political and philosophical books.
Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe, is cited in many a political treatise. Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought it the most valuable of all books for education. He went so far as to say:
There exists one book, which, to my taste, furnishes the happiest treatise of natural education. What then is this marvelous book? Is it Aristotle? Is it Pliny, is it Buffon? No-it is Robinson Crusoe.
Political writers from Karl Marx to Lyle Rossiter have used the story as an foundation for their analogies. The story itself is intriguing and romantic. A single man, fighting to survive alone on an island.
The author has many themes woven into the story. One is a version of multiculturalism.
When Robinson Crusoe discovers that savages bring their victims to the island to cannibalize, he is filled with righteous ire and his first thought is to kill them. As the rage subsides, his reasoning changes. He considers their cannibalism to be part of their culture, and compares it to his killing of an ox.
It is certain these people either do not commit this as a crime; it is not against their own consciences’ reproving, or their light reproaching them…. When I had considered this a little; it followed necessarily that I was certainly in the wrong in it; that these people were not murderers in the sense that I had before condemned them in my thoughts…
He eventually concludes them to be innocent of any wrongdoing and goes so far as to conclude that killing them would be a most grave wrong.
It’s obviously a budding multiculturalism, based on a moral subjectivism. The problem with multiculturalism, as I see it, is that it assumes an authority of a culture to pass judgment on the individual. The individual being cannibalized is assumed to have lost his right to live by mere virtue of being born into the midst of cannibals.
If we go further, we see that the real problem is the judging of acts by a moral standard. Morality is subjective. In one culture, or even one individual’s way of thinking, murder may be wrong. And in another individual’s way of thought, murder may be right. So are we to acquiesce to murder when the murderer’s morality condones it?
This is a perfect case of a person asking the wrong question. From that very authoritarian Plato to that very modern liberal John Rawls, all law is supposed to rest upon a foundation of morality. They ask the question, “what morality is law best founded upon?” When indeed that is the wrong question to ask.
Law should no be founded upon morality. Morality is subjective. We’d might as well base our law on alliteration, or the ramblings on an insane person.
Legitimate law is supposed to draw its legitimacy from the consent of the governed to the social contract - that social contract that says I will do you no harm in fair consideration of your pledge to do me no harm, and in the case of intended harm by a third party, I will defend you in fair consideration of your pledge to do the same.
No morality there, just an agreement. A social contract. Like the contract I have with my landlord to pay my rent, it’s based not on morality but on mutual benefit and consent of the parties to the contract.
Morality is good and fine for individuals to order their own lives, but it should not be legislated. And indeed, when morality may be effectively used to justify cannibalism, my point is made quite effectively by the very proponents of it.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I can’t imagine that in the multicultural milieu of modern Britain we’d take too
kindly to an influx of cannibalistic immigrants. Would Tesco be prepared to
stock human meat grillsteaks? From where would the meat be sourced?
Perhaps a lot of Arab and Asian countries would sell their unwanted female
children to the meat trade. We could even see the growth of a new industry, as
poorer countries made it their business to supply quality corn fed infants to
developed nations such as our own.
I s’pose one possibility is that individuals could carry donor cards, declaring
that they’d like their bodies to be given to MacDonalds for culinary use after
death. Perhaps in return for this gift, ‘Donalds could award them a lifetime
discount on their Super Size Half Pound Manburger. The agreement would
therefore be mutually beneficient with the added bonus of avoiding further
environmental damage from a wasteful cremation or burial in an already
overcrowded graveyard.
I think there might be a public outcry from the bleeding hearts on moral
grounds if such a programme were instigated today. The health aspect could
also give cause for concern, what with the recent health scares over AIDS and
CJD. There’d probably also be worries about drug and pesticide residues but
looking on the bright side, this could open up new markets as suppliers offered
organically produced human meat to the health conscious for a few dollars
more.
It’s a far off fantasy and I can only see it taking place if we fail to change our
ways regarding carbon emissions and end up with a world climate that is no
longer conducive to conventional meat production but perhaps given the
required conditions there could be a shift in the moral zeitgist and cannibalism
will come into vogue.
Yes, you have almost convinced me that cannibalism is purely a subjective
moral issue and should not be legislated against. Pass me that leg…
January 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
It should be legislated against, but not on moral grounds.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:43 am
No need to legislate, I was jus’ talking my usual rubbish. Cannibalism will
never catch on in our taboo ridden Western culture, anymore than
vegetarianism will. Everyone knows that veggies are beardy wierdies, and are
thus forever banned from the ranks of folks whom one might wish to emulate
and the same goes for cannibals, if they exist.
I’m reading Moby Dick at prez, in an effort to absorb some “great” literature
before I’m under the sod and it’s too late. There’s a cannibal in this story too,
the harpoonist Queequeg with whom the narrator, Ishmael enjoys a close and
affectionate relationship. They even sleep in the same bed at times, in a
strictly non- gay sort of way. I suppose you could describe this as a positive
crosscultural relationship. Ishmael is very tolerant of Queequegs cannibal past
and even strives to respect his religion, which involves worshipping a little
wooden idol called yojo. I’m up to about page 90 and haven’t come across
Ahab yet. I’m avoiding the temptation to fast forward to the serious whale stuff
and have likewise eschewed the urge to spin a recently acquired DVD of the
1956 film starring Gregory Peck. Good actor, but film adaptations are never as
rewarding as books methinks.
Getting back to the point. What is the point? Law and Morality. How you
manage to divorce the two, I can’t tell. And law IS sometimes based on the
ramblings of an insane person, or an insane morality. For instance, in Saudi
Arabian law where women are not allowed to testify in court because they are
not considered reliable witnesses purely because they are female and hence,
inferior. Are laws such as this moral or immoral and is it purely a matter of
opinion?
February 1st, 2008 at 3:36 am
“Law should not be founded on morality. Morality is subjective We might as
well base our law on alliteration, or the ramblings of an insane person”.
What do you mean exactly by this statement? Lots of laws are more complex
than simply promising to pay the rent and often appear to be more than a little
tainted by notions of fairness or morality. Examples include abortion law or
laws relating to assisted suicide.
Wouldn’t it be truer to say that law is and should be founded on morality.
Notions of what is morally right change, evolve and hopefully improve over
time. The law itself is a fluid thing that alters to reflect these shifts but is
ultimately a tool for achieving fairness in human relations. Fairness = morality.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:37 am
Law is founded on morality. That it the error of it. Gay marriage can be considered immoral, so they oppose it. During the early years of America, adultery was (and still is) considered immoral, and at that time the law prescribed death as the penalty for it (Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville). Pornography faces the same issue.
Morality doesn’t have the authority to become law. How can we oppose any law if morality stands behind it, and morality itself is used as the justification?
Consider the beginnings of society. When you are in the (fictional) natural state, and you encounter others in the natural state, no laws have yet been created. Just as no laws govern the acts of animals. Total freedom exists. But as danger.
So in response to the danger of total freedom, you and the others decide to create a pact, a rule to ensure your mutual safety. Two proposals are put before you:
Collectivist Social Contract
All parties to the collectivist social contract will submit themselves to the democratic governance. Morality shall be decided by the majority and imposed. If the majority determines that drinking is immoral, the majority will be presumed to have the right to impose this and any other judgment upon the people.
Individualist Social Contract
Under the individualist social contract, we agree only to limit freedom insofar as it is required by the terms of this contract, namely: that I shall do you no harm, and you shall do me no harm, and in the case of proposed harm by another, I shall render you defense and you shall do the same for me.
Which contract would you agree to?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
When you put it like that, the individualist social contract wins hands down. It
sounds healthier for want of a better word, allowing people freedom to
determine their own personal morality and removing religion’s tendency to
skew the law in unfortunate ways.
I still think that without religious interference, law would be informed by and
evolve in relation to the prevailing morality of it’s makers, and that this would
change over time.
Secularists are probably better qualified morally than religion pushers, owing
their principles to thought, debate and reasoning rather than a wish to apply
the precepts of their favourite folklore fairytale.
The Individualist Social Contract appears to properly observe the separation of
church and state. I think it already is supposed to exist in America although
you wouldn’t think so to hear some of the soundbites the politician’s use to woo
voters. “One Nation Under God”, “Freedom requires religion, just as religion
requires freedom.” These kind of quotes, if uttered by UK politicians would
sound the death knell for their careers and might even raise questions about
their mental health. It begs the question in this interesting time when we have
the possibility of a female or black American leader - would the US ever
welcome an Atheist President?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
You would think so, but historically the secularists have been the worst Utopian and social planners. Even today, the humanists tend toward socialism.
I guess it’s hard to suppress urges to plan society.
If he or she were an individualist I’d welcome it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“I guess it’s hard to suppress urges to plan society”
Isn’t social planning of some kind necessary in the large, unwieldy societies
that most people reside in nowadays? Individualist ideas would cope well with
protecting citizens from religion based meddling in the field of morality, on that
we agree but what about other social problems where collectivist concepts
could offer the most satisfactory solutions?
I’m thinking about the question of providing for the health and welfare of all
members of society, regardless of their ability to pay. I’ve been viewing
Wikepedia to gain some idea of the US system of healthcare provision. It looks
headache inducingly complex and riddled with inequalities and flaws, not least
of which is the high cost of administering such complexity.
It must have a deleterious effect on the mental health of millions of
Americans in having to worry about their inadequacy of, or complete lack of
health insurance cover.
The US system contrasts sharply with Britain’s where we have a system of
healthcare that was introduced by a socialist political party in 1948. It is known
as the National Health Service and is funded from general taxation and is
available to all, free of charge at the point of use.
Our system appears simpler, better planned and probably works out cheaper.
So is social planning always a bad idea?
I know from other parts of your blog that you have an antipathy towards so
called “cradle to grave” welfare provision but I’d like to know why. In societies
as wealthy and civilised as ours it seems to me common sense and morally
right that we work together to eliminate or at least minimize human misery
amongst our own citizens by good social planning.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:07 am
February 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
The US system of healthcare does have big problems and drawbacks according
to what I’ve read about it. There are gaps in coverage and millions of
Americans are either underinsured or uncovered by health insurance at any
one time. Thousands of players lead to a very high administrative cost, and as
you point out, there’s the massive fraud issue. All of these factors lead to
poorer value for money than would be provided by a properly thought out
universal system - a “collective” solution that appears almost Spocklike in the
logic of it’s desirability.
I accept your point about the waste and incompetence of government, but in
order to create a universal system you would need government to collect the
funding from taxpayers and regulate the plan. It should’t be beyond the scope
of human invention for the US govt. to do this, judging by the fact that other
developed western democracies have managed it.
The function of the welfare state is to provide an assured safety net for
members of society that do work and contribute, lest they become unable to
do so, plus help for those who for whatever reason, say physical or mental
disability, are unable to contribute. Again I take your point of citizens playing
the system and adopting welfare as a permanent lifestyle choice when they are
in fact, physically able to work and contribute. This is a problem that needs
addressing and there’s a debate to be had there on how to do so.
UK housing minister Caroline Flint made a misfiring stab at it recently by
announcing a proposal to make the allocation of govt. supplied social housing
conditional on tenants seeking work. This was to counteract the “No one works
around here” culture that is said to exist on some council estates. It didn’t take
long for her fellow MP’s and other groups to point out the flaws of her idea. For
one thing, local councils have a statutary duty to house homeless families with
children, so they cannot evict them without first providing alternative
accommodation. A swelling in the ranks of the destitute would not be a good
result, so I’m afraid Caroline’s idea will be discreetly buried.
Your example of Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission doesn’t sound like something
that could be applied on a universal scale without creating more problems than
it solves. I assume it is a charity and therefore funded by voluntary
contributions, meaning that the non charitably inclined could opt out of paying
towards a benefit system that they may need to draw upon at some stage in
their lives. Also, If it stipulates that beneficiaries are required to look for work,
then it presumably doesn’t cater for people who are too sick or disabled to do
so.
Again, government funded “collectivist” solutions are most likely to result in a
welfare system that is fairest in both funding and implementation.
The UK welfare system isn’t perfect any more than the American one is, but I
don’t consider this reason, or the fact that it is open to abuse, as a good
enough reason for trashing it, given that it helps to tackle social ills and
improve life for the poorest sector of communities.
.