Are you a good person?

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Sounds superstitious to me. Prejudice is likely to create pointless allegiance problems than a mixing society. I don't envy Japan at all.

Imposing "tolerant" liberal multiculturalism is hypocritical, for it creates false walls of broadening horizons, which is silly considering one cannot embrace all values especially contradictory ones. It is preferable to respect people's walls and their intrinsic differences rather than breaking them down and delusionally yelling freedom whilst displacing them with other walls. In truth, liberal multiculturalism destroys diversity in thought and Alain de Benoist's "ethnopluralism" makes more sense.

Ethnopluralism - Wikipedia

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I'm a melting pot type of person. Develop a consistent set of rights and laws for everyone and we civilly promote our values to each other.

Melting pots do not really work well with cultures worlds apart, or those that have historically fought brutal wars (eg, Ottomans Wars were bloody as hell -- surprised many Europeans do not discuss it much anymore). One can debate the necessary criteria of civility all day.

[ToALonelyPeace]

The idea that a good person can only be born from a good (like-minded) community is interesting since Plato time, and through capitalism it may become a reality. Many countries already follow Western consumption and government surveillance formula, couple with advance in biogenetic and digital technology and you've different nations with the same people. The response to this homogenization is a rise in nationalism and xenophobia, but it's not going to seriously impede it.

A thorough examination of this homogenization The Machinic Unconscious: Enslavement and Automation

@Mithras: Why shouldn't the 'white man' or Zoroastrianism be erased? Everything dies, everything disappears no matter how good and grand you imagine it to be.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Most of these social group distinctions are too arbitrary. White nationalists even divide people up into smaller and smaller groups. Even if they had their way, they'd keep finding More ways to divide each other.
Same is probably true for most non-white nationalists. That nationalists are mostly very stupid doesn't help.

What is considered great British culture is a mixture of people who didn't use to get on.

Great difficulties in integration are much better than the miserable alternative.

Communities and various traditions determine the standard of what is considered goodness, and people are conditioned by the nation's societal normative values. There are no objective moral properties, so what we define as good is largely based on an ethos. Also, I find it very cocky many liberals call this or that difference, among various ethnic groups, minuscule when it means a world of difference to many.

[ToALonelyPeace]

I'm afraid we're going off topic. However, I don't understand how someone reconcile the two beliefs within themselves: the knowledge that everything returns to chaos and the fervent desire to preserve something no matter the blood shed. Taking the extremist path, you will not find order or civilization my friend, only death, destruction, and suffering await you.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I'm lost for words.

Edit: The post I'm responding to was deleted.

When I was younger, I used to read copious philosophy articles during my education. It sickens me how ignorant figures like Sam Harris or other "ethical naturalists" are towards the basic dialectic of ethics. I recently read this poorly argued one:

Memeing Naturalism: Is Naturalism Nihilistic?

He broke his argument here:

"Crucially, scientific explanations don’t entail that human existential and ethical concerns are unreal or unfulfillable, only that they are situated in a natural world that, logically enough, has no capacity to validate them."

Don't you think the issue is precisely the "natural world has no capacity to validate" one normative scheme from another, due to presumed lack of objective moral properties (meta-ethics) outside emotions?

No amount of mental gymnastics of a naturalistic atheist can argue against their philosophy logically entailing there being no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals within their worldview. Honestly, I find the naturalist who argues for moral realism a priori stupider than the religious man who justifies his or her chosen ethics with preternatural or supernatural reasons. Note, a posteriori reasoning in a fully naturalized world would just leave one with a descriptive ethics and neither yield a meta-ethics or normative ethics.p, but of course imbeciles like Sam Harris do not understand this.

If our moral compasses are simply about adaptability to societal demands or preservation, and it does not reflect objective moral properties beyond one's own qualitative experience, then their concerns cannot justifiably be founded on any greater reason but fancy. The fact is, if society broke down, much of what we consider transgression would be seen as adaptable and fit within present social context, so the naturalist (e.g., like that naive guy who wrote that article) would have no choice but to say that morality, which was once seen as transgressive, is also "naturalized".

tl;dr, Metaphysical naturalism precludes a priori justifications for moral realism. This is very worrying.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html
(scroll down to meta-ethics)