What ends are justifiable to preserve a minority's way of life?

Question

Is it OK to live a life that is sustained by what you believe to be unethical and or immoral?
Are you innocent because of your lack of education?
Are you willingly ignorant?
Is plausible deniableity a good excuse to justify atrocities?

Answer 1

I'm a libertarian, and believe in a "live and let live" philosophy. It doesn't matter if you're in the minority or majority. Live however you like, so long as it is not at the expense of or harm to others--including their economic status, physical well-being, and their liberties to likewise live and do as they please.

Needless to say, there is never an excuse for the committal of atrocities.

Answer 2

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ represented minorities who did not overthrow their governments but changed the hearts of leadership and changed their country for the better.

In this the standard way of life could be maintained; the politics, the economy, and the religion. That route is best for all types of people whether educated or not. And no the ones who practiced non violence and obedience to the law, and allowable moral civil obedience to the law without violence or destruction were not ignorant but very people full of passion and looking for a brighter hope in their country and with their fellow man.

Those three never allowed for plausible deniableity but a straight frontal attack to show the in humanness of an unjust system that ruled honest and good men the wrong way. Those three allowed the world to see another way a minority could fight. And make their country and nation a better place for both the minority and the majority and to ensure a healty and saver future for their children.

Answer 3

No, it is not OK to live a life sustained by anything unethical or immoral. Your conscience cannot allow you to live happily and normally knowing that your existence depends on the kind of life you are having.

A minority can always preserve his way of life without staining his reputation or ruining his future. Lack of education or ignorance are no excuses for living indecently nor does one's innocence absolves him of guilt.

Answer 4

That's five different Qs.

1) Depends on what you mean. If you're talking about bigamy or female mutilation or sacrifice of live animals or printing voting materials in Spanish, or permitting gay bashing the answer is NO, none of these practices can be permitted as they damage our American way of life. If you mean large minority populations speaking their native language among themselves or wearing traditional clothing if not indecent then that's fine.

2) Obviously, if you think it's unethical or immoral, it's not ok.

3) Innocence/guilt are moral, not intellectual. Education is irrelevant to morality.

4) Personally, no. I try to learn as much as I can about as much as I can.

5) Atrocities, by nature cannot be justified. If they are genuinely justifiable (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden) they are not atrocities.

Answer 5

First scan the attributes common in all nature: nature features plentiful examples on the principle of minority-majority. Once possessed of the principle, then look to the varied turns on the applications of it -- look to the ways of the stars, the plants and animals; draw from these what you find suited to that of human beings. Your take on it all, then, will shine with no more or less light than will the next person's.

Answer 6

i think that since people come here to find a better life, we should let them. What if something were to happen and you had to leave the country? then the country that you go to makes all laws possible to keep you from living a happy life??
it's horrible. i mean, the immigrants are doing all the jobs no one else would do for the pay they get.
seriously, if all immigrants are banned, the economy would collapse within a couple hours.

Answer 7

There are certain basic rules, such as the respect of the dignity and life of others that I think we can safely call universal. Beyond that, we enter very thorny territory. They eat dogs in certain parts of the world. This seems atrocious to westerners, but Indians would say the same of westerners for eating cattle.
So beyond basic human rights, I think it becomes presumptuous and colonial to decide what is right and wrong for another culture. Not so long ago, many westerners used to think it was their right, their duty even, to spread Christianity by any means possible, whether other people wanted to be converted or not.

I am also reminded of a story.
In India, it used to be the tradition to burn the widow with her husband when he died. An English governor opposed the practice and made it illegal. The elders went to see him and said he couldn't do that, for it was their culture that demanded this and it was an ancestral tradition of theirs. The British commander replied: Very well, but we also have a custom. When somebody participates in the burning of a woman, we hang them.

Answer 8

Not in a so called civilized world. Atrocities are only acceptable by the governments with the most power/ influence.

Answer 9

live life the way you want and just pay the price
live a good clean life and you be just fine

Answer 10

no
no
we are all when it's convenient
absolutely not