Orlando Figueiredo

Deixe um comentário

Not all cultures are equally valuable – the discussion

My former post on this blog, named “Not all cultures are equally valuable” glinted a few reactions, namely from two good friends, on facebook. I am now publishing their arguments and my answers to them. The facebook post is embed bellow.

Comment 1: Ouch… There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Christians and bad Christians, good Jews and bad Jews, good Buddhists and bad Buddhists, good men and bad men, good women and bad women, good Portuguese and bad Portuguese, good Belgians and bad Belgians, good Saudis and bad Saudis… I still prefer a good Saudi to a bad Belgian.

Answer to comment 1:

Not talking about individuals, but about cultures. I prefer a good Saudi to a bad Belgian, too. But I feel more comfortable living in Belgium, which has democratic laws and where you can be Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist without the fear of facing prison. I think that the Belgian cultural background is more valuable to the construction of a better world than the Saudi culture. In fact, a good Saudi, or at least one that cares with a fair society, should be very critical of the Saudi society.
Let’s say that I am a good Portuguese and I care with fairness and equality. I must, indeed, criticise my own society. The difference between me and the Saudi is that I can do it without the fear of facing prison, suffering expulsion from my country or even losing my job. This is why I prefer Portugal (or Belgium) to Saudi Arabia. But it doesn’t mean that Portuguese (or Belgian, or European, or western) society does not need critical thinking. In fact it needs, only a different kind of criticism than Saudi Arabia needs. Continuar a ler

1 Comentário

Not all cultures are equally valuable

Versão portuguesa: Nem todas as culturas são iguais

In his book entitled “The Moral Landscape”, Sam Harris, a staunch defender of atheism and part of a movement known as New Atheism, discuss and criticises the politically correct cultural relativism. Harris argues that there are cultures that cause suffering while others promote well-being. In consequence, they must be differently valued. The Landscape from the title concerns the hilly 3D graphics showing the well-being achieved as the dependent variable and the cultural background of diverse societies as the independent one. Highest hills represent, of course, societies that were capable of achieving better well-being. He also recognises the subjectivity of the term well-being. However, as a neuroscientist, he also proposes methods of measuring it objectively, namely using the concentration of happiness related molecules in our brains.
The recent events in Brussels airport and in the metro station of Maelbeek show, unfortunately once again, how right Sam Harris is. Many will affirm that this is not Islam; they’ll bespeak Islam as a peaceful religion, and claim radicalism as the cause of terrorist attacks, not Islam. And they’re right. I do believe there are plenty Muslims that do not agree with daesh ways. However, Islam, like all other Abrahamic religions, is a misogynist, male chauvinist society, and a homophobic and xenophobe culture. If self-entitled Muslims, like most self –entitled Christians and Jews, defend peace and human rights, it is not because of their religion, but in spite of it. In fact, it needs a really flexible interpretation to discern the “Old Testament”, the “Tora” or the “Coran”, as texts of peace. I am also convinced most of these people are Muslims, Christians or Jews because they were educated in that culture, and never had the opportunity of making a critical reading of their religion books.
It is time to stop with the politically correct discourse that all cultures are equally good and valuable. Individuals must be always treated as persons, and have their will respected within the boundaries of democracy, by all, laic or religious, cultures. But, cultures and ideas must be strongly criticised and, if that is the case, denounced.
After all I still prefer Belgium to Saudi Arabia, and it is not just because women can freely drive in the former.

Deixe um comentário

Democratização Monetária – Parte 1

A economia da dívida: diagnóstico

Imagine que havia instalado na sua cave ou garagem uma máquina de imprimir notas. Imagine, também, que punha essas notas a circular sem qualquer problema de reconhecimento da sua autenticidade. Dir-se-ia que estava a produzir dinheiro a partir do nada. O que aconteceria? Provavelmente teria uma visita pouco simpática das autoridades, a impressora apreendida, o esquema desmantelado e algum tempo a passar na cadeia. Porém, é precisamente isto que os bancos fazem quando criam empréstimos. Criam dinheiro a partir do nada e colocam-no em circulação. A diferença é que o fazem impunemente.

Não! Não produzem notas em impressoras furtivas instaladas em recônditas caves. A banca cria dinheiro a partir do nada através da emissão de dívida a privados, empresas e estados, cobrando, aos devedores, uma renda (juros) enquanto a dívida não for saldada. Paga-se, assim, por um bem que não existia antes de a dívida ser contraída. Esta situação conduz à deslocação de riqueza dos setores sociais mais desfavorecidos para os mais ricos o que confere um caráter obsceno a todo o processo.

O método é surpreendentemente simples. Continuar a ler