It is a paradox - the Turkish community in Germany is often more conservative than Turkish society in its homeland. Western Muslims in "modern society" are much easier to succumb to the lure of extremists.
The problem is how we create and "protect" the social rules that define our coexistence. In fact those who fight so much against change, against integration, against immigration, advocates of enforcement traditional values or closed borders get their creates terrorists themselves.
Bikinis do not belong on the beach
Not so long ago, an exposed ankle, or whatever, reminiscent of today's bikinis that cover only the absolute necessities, things were completely unacceptable, outrageous, and it wasn't a problem for anyone to arrest you for them.
And today it is the other way around. You will come to the beach veiled and arrested you. As? What has changed? It was sexual revolution 60s? No. That was the climax, that the essential has happened before.
Crucial was the discomfort provided by previous swimming attire and the complexity of women's clothing. Discomfort was considered a natural sacrifice that a woman bears for her beauty. Emancipation of women but it led to the need for simpler clothing and at the same time to the respect that women began to have for their bodies. This began to change as well idea of beauty, clothing and that moved by the moral perception of society. Despite the fact that with the change in perception, the sales of bikinis also changed (upwards) and thus the profitability of the new lifestyle.
But where did she come from emancipation a feminism?
V industrial revolution. Suddenly, a man of blue blood, the capitalist, could become rich by giving people what people were willing to pay for. Breaking into traditional roles until then; and if anyone could provide services, why not woman? And if a woman ever did better, why couldn't she vote? Be voted? Have your voice in society? Be equivalent? Reveal your ankle or the rest of your body if you want to?
Despite the fact that the involvement of women in economic and scientific life was necessary - economic growth has meant more jobs, more opportunities for R&D funding, bigger the need for scientists… And it doesn't matter if they are women or men.
The industrial revolution and economic profit led to emancipation. But what led to the Industrial Revolution? Discovery, crossing borders, new horizons, education… all the gradual steps that changed social rules from a closed to an increasingly open society, where they increasingly clashed different concepts of moralitywhere z „market rules"She came out and she started to prevail everywhere the rules that were most beneficial to society. And you will find such rules only in comparison, only in the competition.
To illustrate - imagine if all women today stopped working, engaging in science, social life. Dear fun, isn't it?
The black man belongs to cotton
Slavery. Whether it's "modern" or traditional, today we damn it and we perceive it as a phenomenon that is not desirable. The ban / abolition of slavery in Western countries and then especially in the USA is taken as a milestone for the freedom of blacks and slaves.
But this is not the case. Everything had to start sometime earlierfor this prohibition / repeal to take place.
Free, paid and educated black man he was more productive than his slavish opposite. He could trade freely, and he was free to think of how to earn more — give people more to what they would be willing to pay.
Despite the fact that the development of industry and raising living standards has led to higher demands on ability and knowledge workers. An uneducated slave probably wouldn't control today CNC machine. Whatever it is.
The richer the plantation owners and the more they could invest, the more it developed production and industry; the higher it was standard of living company and the greater the demand for services. The development of services - such as retail, banking, transport - requires better capital - more money for investment, better machines, more educated people to operate it all.
And what about the slave at the moment when the cotton is better processed by the machine? Kill? But why, when the "owner" cost something? Educate to make it more usable? But how do you force someone to study?
Having slaves lost economic meaning and it is beautiful to see that they fought for slavery longer farmed, less developed and poorer south USA than on industrial north. The possibility of investment, raising living standards, trade - this led to the abolition of slavery. As a result, the given moral rule - the right gentleman has his slave - not only that ceased to apply, but even today it is taken as the complete opposite of morality.
This has led to the need for education, which is driven by the desire to discover new and innovate for a better offer to people - consumers - consumers - the market. And again - the more open a society where new technologies, ideas, and business reach as quickly as possible, the sooner this inefficient rule has disappeared.
Murder, death, murder
Why is murder immoral at all? Or vice versa - where is murder taken the least immorally?
This is just a thesis, but note where the normal and most common death penalty is: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia. How liberally and openly do we perceive local society and states?
Killing a person is immoral and wrong not because the law says so. On the contrary, the law says so because there is a broad consensus throughout society. All the people agreed that murder was bad. However - how much good could the person perform? Pin knowledge died with him? Pin disease - emotions that a person projects into his decision - will he cause death?
Doing business with an individual before you kill him and take what I want is long term more advantageous. Profiting from the lives of others and from cooperation is more advantageous and longer lasting than plunder and kill.
It is the economic motive that led to the idea that killing is wrong. It was first observationThat not killing is better than killing that led and stands at the foundation of moral reasoning value of human life, its irreplaceability, individuality and importance.
As was the case with the equivalence of blacks versus slavery, the emancipation of women versus traditional "chauvinism", the right to decide on one's body and the freedom of dress (bikini) versus ordered veiling - first observation and economic motives of individuals and "markets" followed by moral account.
Moral rules are like goods on the market
Actually - Absolutely the same applies to all moral rules as to all goods in any market. The more closed a society, the fewer incentives it enters, the more protectionism to traditional moral rules (“protection of traditional production”), the more less innovation, By less effective and beneficial moral rules apply and the worse the law that comes from it.
The more obstacles we artificially place in the conflict and competition of cultures and moral rules, and the more closed societies - whether economically or socially - we artificially create, the more worse moral rules will come to prominence in societies. Not only in ours, but also in the outer ones, which we prevent from entering and seeing. This is valid both for closed companies and for forced, artificially unified ones.
State closure of various communities - Turks in Germany, Muslims in Europe - so logically led to that in the given communities, they survived customs and moral arrangements, which in some original societies had long since disappeared due to the greater openness of their homelands.
With trade comes cultural conflict, and with cultural conflict comes the assessment of moral rules. And in the long run, the better one always wins.
That is why those who call most for 'protection of traditional values', 'closure of borders' and so on, call for more terrorists, more violent clashes, more valid moral rules that harm society rather than benefit it.
The whole process must, of course, be natural, unforced. However, if we want peaceful coexistence, quality legal and moral rules in society, we need an open society, open markets, an open mind.