Statements made in a recent article beg me to question their moral and ethical validity. Meaning the question is are the two statements valid based on moral and ethical reasoning? "Linda Hagen of Hero, a private company that runs 40 percent of Norway's reception centres for refugees, explained that the aim is to help asylum-seekers 'avoid mistakes as they discover Norwegian culture'. 'There's no single cultural code to say what is good or bad behaviour because we want a free society,' she said. 'There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms.'" Does anyone believe that these are valid statements? If so why and if not why so?
'There has to be tolerance for attitudes that may be seen as immoral by some traditional or religious norms.'" Granny says if ya got Jesus as yer Savior... ... den ya got morality an' freedom... ... dem Mooslums gotta get right with God... ... a-fore dey gonna have morals an' freedom.
They are valid but should not be seen as open ended, what I mean is that the legal system should be used as a guide for where "free society" begin and ends... as well as what should be tolerated. So no there is no single cultural code, but there still are laws and peoples rights within these laws. Also, yes religion and different traditions may seem immoral to some but again the guideline for what is tolerated should be the legal system.
People should be free to do what they want so long as it does not harm others against their consent. Raping a 3 year old would qualify as harming others, and so should not be tolerated.
I would assume that Norwegian law is based upon the mitigation of harm as is American law... in general at least. I see harm as the boundary that separates an action from an immoral action as harm. Any country with laws is at best a free/ish country. Religion has a bad habit of judging harmless action as immoral. But religion has to follow secular law in secular countries.
I was waiting to see if anyone else was going to comment on this before I chimed in. I found it striking how she completely ignored the rule of law and the existence of cultural norms in saying there is no cultural code to say what is good or bad behavior, while also implying that it is not possible to have such if 'we' want a free society. I find it striking and concerning how statements, articles and news casts can regularly circulate blatantly ignorant and biasedly spun information while triggering dissension and objective criticism from the rest of society. What's striking about this statement is it directly conflicts with the very definition of what a society is. The totality of people are not interdependent and operating as a community when a percent of the total populous is allowed to abuse or act against the established codes of moral and ethical conduct that ultimately create a common culture. With the challenges we face as a communities and societies, recognizing and respecting established moral and ethical codes is the only way to maintain and develop the health and sustainability of our society.
