Planet Atheism » Me

Moral Structure, Part 3 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:51:01 +0000

Summary

Applying these rules to the 78 logically coherent actions produces 10 moral rankings. These rankings are outlined below, in order of decreasing morality.

Moral Actions (12 actions, Ranked 1 – 4)
Nonmoral Actions (26 actions, Ranked 5-8)
Immoral Actions (40 actions, Ranked 9 & 10)

Moral Ranking:

The Ideal (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies) These actions represent the moral ideal. Their intentions are moral, forethought has been taken to eliminate misjudgment, neglect, and chance and hence have moral outcomes.
Coincidentally Ideal (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These actions are similar to the ideal, in that they have moral intentions whose outcomes were not altered by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. These actions, however, have had no forethought included, which introduces an element of doubt. The existence and influence of misjudgment, neglect, and chance can never be completely eliminated. In the case of The Ideal, forethought was taken to determine the existence of these factors and eliminate them. In this case, however, no such forethought was taken, which increases our doubt. The difference in moral value is slight.
The Bittersweet (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). These are those actions with moral intentions whose outcome has been influenced by chance, despite reasonable forethought. Since actors should not be held responsible for this level of chance, these actions are judged to be moral, according to their intentions, even if the outcome is nonmoral or immoral. The reasoning is that since the element of chance could not have been reasonably predicted or eliminated, we would still encourage this action to be taken in the future with the same intentions and forethought.
The Fortunate (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance, but not in a morally significant way; Rule 4 applies). These are actions where misjudgment, neglect, or chance played a rule due to lack of forethought, but did not affect the overall moral value of the outcome. Thus, in the case of actions with moral intentions, they still had moral outcomes, but only luckily so. Such actions are to be repeated, but with the addition of forethought to reduce the influence of the above factors, which could easily decrease the moral value of such actions.
The Cautious (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These are actions whose intentions have no moral value as perceived by the actor, and the actor takes efforts to ensure that such remains the case.
The Simple (Nonmoral intentions; No forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). As with Cautious actions, though no forethought was taken. The lack of forethought is most likely due to the trivial nature of such actions, hence the title of “The Simple.”
The Unforeseen (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). As with Bittersweet actions, though the intention was of nonmoral value. The actor is not held responsible, but due to the nonmoral value of the intentions, the act is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
The Careless (Moral or nonmoral intentions: No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). Here actions with moral or nonmoral intentions have nonmoral outcomes due to the influence of preventable circumstances. Given the nonmoral outcome, there is no punishment or reward, and forethought is highly encouraged for future attempts at this action again, lest they become Criminally Negligent.
The Criminally Negligent (Moral or nonmoral intentions, No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). As with The Fortunate, and the Careless, preventable circumstances have resulted in an immoral outcome. Since these influences could have been reduced by reasonable forethought, the actor is held responsible. Such actions should not taken again without forethought.
The Fiendish (Immoral intentions; Rule 1 applies). All actions with immoral intentions fall into this lowest moral category.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to construct a set of rules to analyze complex moral actions, taking into account intentions, means, consequences, and outside influences in the determination of an overall moral value. 78 logically coherent actions, based on the possible combinations of the atomic elements of a compound action, were analyzed through these rules and ranked according to moral value. The result was not entirely Intentionalist (where only intentions matter) or Consequentialist (where only consequences matter), but a combination, where other factors and responsibilities were a factor.

This paper leaves open many questions including: “What constitutes a simple moral act?” “What level of forethought should be considered reasonable?” “To what degree should we factor related consequences in judging the outcome of an action?” These questions were beyond the scope of this paper. The rules designed here are such that answers to the above questions would not invalidate them, but rather allow these rules to be incorporated into a larger moral framework.

Lastly, there is the issue of the validity of the nonmoral value. Arguments can be made such that all actions, however trivial, are either moral or immoral. While ultimate resolution of this question is out of the scope of this paper, the rules can be modified to account for no nonmoral actions. Actions can still have nonmoral intentions, as intentions are based upon perception and the actor can fail to perceive any moral value to their intended goal. The outcome, however, will be either moral or immoral, since this is an objective assessment. Elimination of all rules with nonmoral outcomes and applying the rules results in the same ranking enumerated above, but with the nonmoral classed actions (5-8) removed. Alternatively, “nonmoral” can be replaced with “moral value unknown” to acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge in moral assessments.

Moral Structure, Part 3 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:51:01 +0000

Summary

Applying these rules to the 78 logically coherent actions produces 10 moral rankings. These rankings are outlined below, in order of decreasing morality.

Moral Actions (12 actions, Ranked 1 – 4)
Nonmoral Actions (26 actions, Ranked 5-8)
Immoral Actions (40 actions, Ranked 9 & 10)

Moral Ranking:

The Ideal (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies) These actions represent the moral ideal. Their intentions are moral, forethought has been taken to eliminate misjudgment, neglect, and chance and hence have moral outcomes.
Coincidentally Ideal (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These actions are similar to the ideal, in that they have moral intentions whose outcomes were not altered by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. These actions, however, have had no forethought included, which introduces an element of doubt. The existence and influence of misjudgment, neglect, and chance can never be completely eliminated. In the case of The Ideal, forethought was taken to determine the existence of these factors and eliminate them. In this case, however, no such forethought was taken, which increases our doubt. The difference in moral value is slight.
The Bittersweet (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). These are those actions with moral intentions whose outcome has been influenced by chance, despite reasonable forethought. Since actors should not be held responsible for this level of chance, these actions are judged to be moral, according to their intentions, even if the outcome is nonmoral or immoral. The reasoning is that since the element of chance could not have been reasonably predicted or eliminated, we would still encourage this action to be taken in the future with the same intentions and forethought.
The Fortunate (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance, but not in a morally significant way; Rule 4 applies). These are actions where misjudgment, neglect, or chance played a rule due to lack of forethought, but did not affect the overall moral value of the outcome. Thus, in the case of actions with moral intentions, they still had moral outcomes, but only luckily so. Such actions are to be repeated, but with the addition of forethought to reduce the influence of the above factors, which could easily decrease the moral value of such actions.
The Cautious (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These are actions whose intentions have no moral value as perceived by the actor, and the actor takes efforts to ensure that such remains the case.
The Simple (Nonmoral intentions; No forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). As with Cautious actions, though no forethought was taken. The lack of forethought is most likely due to the trivial nature of such actions, hence the title of “The Simple.”
The Unforeseen (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). As with Bittersweet actions, though the intention was of nonmoral value. The actor is not held responsible, but due to the nonmoral value of the intentions, the act is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
The Careless (Moral or nonmoral intentions: No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). Here actions with moral or nonmoral intentions have nonmoral outcomes due to the influence of preventable circumstances. Given the nonmoral outcome, there is no punishment or reward, and forethought is highly encouraged for future attempts at this action again, lest they become Criminally Negligent.
The Criminally Negligent (Moral or nonmoral intentions, No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). As with The Fortunate, and the Careless, preventable circumstances have resulted in an immoral outcome. Since these influences could have been reduced by reasonable forethought, the actor is held responsible. Such actions should not taken again without forethought.
The Fiendish (Immoral intentions; Rule 1 applies). All actions with immoral intentions fall into this lowest moral category.

Conclusion

Don’t Link To PZ’s Posts

Me — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:50:42 +0000

Seriously. PZ really, really doesn't want you to link the following posts.

We've Angered Another Crackpot

Grandpa Simpson Gets A Writing Gig

The Dead Are Dead

Dr. Robert Lanza and Biocentrism

Pharyngula says:

"Scientist, Theoretician, Genius, Renegade Thinker. He wants us to take down a few posts by Orac and myself. I guess he doesn't like being compared to Grandpa Simpson, or seeing disagreement with his ideas about the afterlife, or being exposed as a quantum woo-meister.

Gosh, what will I do?

Seed has a very clearcut policy on our posts, and there is going to be no attempt to censor any of them. Gee. So I'm not going to edit them.

I'd hate to think that anyone might link to this post, or to these presumably objectional posts #1, #2, or #3.

That might increase the likelihood that Google will return those links in searches for Robert Lanza.

Whatever you do, don't link to any of these posts about Robert Lanza on Scienceblogs!"

Don’t Link To PZ’s Posts

Me — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:50:42 +0000

Seriously. PZ really, really doesn't want you to link the following posts.

We've Angered Another Crackpot

Grandpa Simpson Gets A Writing Gig

The Dead Are Dead

Dr. Robert Lanza and Biocentrism

Pharyngula says:

Gosh, what will I do?

Seed has a very clearcut policy on our posts, and there is going to be no attempt to censor any of them. Gee. So I'm not going to edit them.

I'd hate to think that anyone might link to this post, or to these presumably objectional posts #1, #2, or #3.

That might increase the likelihood that Google will return those links in searches for Robert Lanza.

Whatever you do, don't link to any of these posts about Robert Lanza on Scienceblogs!"

Moral Structure Part 2 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:59:16 +0000

Defining the Rules

The 144 actions have been constructed by the blind and mindless process of considering all possible combinations of the available components. It is necessary to exclude some of these due to incoherence.

Two rules of logic are established to do this:

Rules of Logic

Rule of Logic 1: If misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, the moral value of the outcome will be the same as of the intent.

Whenever the moral value of an outcome differs from the moral value of the intent, there must be some cause. We have grouped all causes into the three categories of: misjudgment, neglect, chance. If these aren’t factors affecting the outcome of an action, then the moral value of that action cannot have been changed from the moral value of the intentions.

There are 12 violations of this rule.

Rule of Logic 2: Only chance can influence the outcome of an action with forethought.

As previously stated, forethought is defined as a process by which any resulting influence due to misjudgment and neglect are instead classified as influence due to chance. Alternatively, this can be restated that misjudgment and neglect are necessarily due to lack of sufficient forethought. In either case, the existence of forethought precludes the influence of misjudgment and neglect.

There are 54 violations of this rule.

The Rules of Judgment

Factoring out the logically incoherent actions leaves 78.

For those the following rules of Judgment are devised:

Rule 1: Actions with immoral intentions are judged as immoral.

Given the intended purpose of establishing a guideline for behavior, immoral actions will result in immoral outcomes except when affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. None of those factors are reliable in preventing immoral intentions from being realized. As such, all actions with immoral intentions should be judged as immoral, regardless of outcome.

There are 26 applications of this rule.

Rule 2: Actions where misjudgment, neglect, and chance do not factor are judged according to their intent and outcome, both being of the same moral value.

In accordance with Rule of Logic 1, when misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, then the outcome will invariable have the same moral value as the intentions. Such actions are to be judged in accordance with that moral value.

There are 4 applications of this rule.

Rule 3: Actions with forethought affected by chance are judged according to their intent.

As defined, forethought eliminates the effect of misjudgment and neglect. While elements of chance can be reduced, in quantity and magnitude, to a degree, they cannot be reliably eliminated. Since elements of chance are unpredictable and uncontrollable (predicted and controlled elements of chance would have been eliminated through adequate forethought), the actors should not be reasonable held responsible for them. Such actions are judged according to their intentions, regardless of outcome.

There are 6 applications of this rule.

Rule 4: Actions without forethought affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance are judged according to their intent or outcome, whichever is of least moral value.

When misjudgment and neglect are factors, they are necessarily a result of lack of forethought on the part of the actor, thus making him or her accountable. When chance is a factor in such situations, it is impossible to determine if such chance was unavoidable, since no forethought was taken to make that determination. In either case, the morality of such actions is determined by their outcome or intentions, whichever is least. This ensures that actors are not rewarded for actions which are accidentally made more moral, but held responsible for actions which are accidentally made less moral since the actor neglected to take reasonable precautions against such an occurrence.

There are 42 applications of this rule.

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

To Be Continued With ....

Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.

Moral Structure Part 2 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:59:16 +0000

Defining the Rules

Two rules of logic are established to do this:

Rules of Logic

Rule of Logic 1: If misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, the moral value of the outcome will be the same as of the intent.

There are 12 violations of this rule.

Rule of Logic 2: Only chance can influence the outcome of an action with forethought.

There are 54 violations of this rule.

The Rules of Judgment

Factoring out the logically incoherent actions leaves 78.

For those the following rules of Judgment are devised:

Rule 1: Actions with immoral intentions are judged as immoral.

There are 26 applications of this rule.

Rule 2: Actions where misjudgment, neglect, and chance do not factor are judged according to their intent and outcome, both being of the same moral value.

There are 4 applications of this rule.

Rule 3: Actions with forethought affected by chance are judged according to their intent.

There are 6 applications of this rule.

Rule 4: Actions without forethought affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance are judged according to their intent or outcome, whichever is of least moral value.

There are 42 applications of this rule.

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

To Be Continued With ....

Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.

Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:34:32 +0000

This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.

Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.
Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.

Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:34:32 +0000

This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.

Introduction

Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day by Thunderfoot

Me — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:01:43 +0000

Thunderfoot: "Free Speech is non-negotiable."

Thunderfoot's Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day video

Thunderfoot's South Park vs Islam video

Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day by Thunderfoot

Me — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:01:43 +0000

Thunderfoot: "Free Speech is non-negotiable."

Thunderfoot's Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day video

Thunderfoot's South Park vs Islam video

Happy Atheist Solidarity Day!

Me — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:15:20 +0000

Happy Atheist Solidarity Day!

Me — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:15:20 +0000

Freedom of Religion and Civil Rights

Me — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:23:37 +0000

I was recently having a discussion with a Christian on the issue of Canada's Anti-Spanking law which was inspired by a Christian Biblical Literalist family who believed that whipping and caning their six children daily was required by their religion.

My position is essentially that the Anti-Spanking law recognizes the Rights of the Child which was established by:

1. The Universal Declaration of Rights, 1948.

Article 25. "2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

2. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 and to which most Western countries are signatories.

Principle 9. "The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation."

3. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child (a binding treaty to all signatories), 1989 and to which 129 (mostly) Western countries are signatories.

Article 14. Item 3. "3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Article 19. Item 1. "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

The Christian's position is nicely summarized in the following paragraph which is a direct quote.

"Need I remind you? - I'm not the one advocating that my personal morality should be forced upon others. Your friends are. But of course, it's okay now - because it's *your* views being forced - as opposed to the fundamentalists on the either side of the spectrum."

My response to the above statement:

"I've been giving this some thought and while I still don't think continuing the discussion would be productive, here are my thoughts anyway.

While (name removed) isn't right, he isn't completely wrong either.

The concept of the "Rights of Man" (Thomas Paine) is a view which is being imposed by Secular society.

However, it's being imposed through International and Civil Law.

Unlike, religious dogma, the Secular State doesn't impose through violence or authoritarianism. It does so through the Rule of Law while recognizing the rights of all in the context of what is being imposed, including religious rights.

So, this is one critical difference which (name removed) doesn't appear to recognize.

Another critical difference is in the content of the views and the value judgment that we place on those views as a culture.

The view that we are imposing through Law is one that recognizes the rights of all and establishes the position that each and every human being has Natural Rights (Thomas Paine) that those rights are inviolable by any belief, social system, culture, etc.

This view is diametrically opposed to any dogmatic belief system like religion, communism, fascism, etc. because it raises the Rights of the Individual above the Rights of the Belief, Organization, State, et al.

So, while Freedom of Religion is recognized under this concept, that freedom cannot and will not be allowed to trump the Natural Rights held by individual human beings including children.

This is the second critical difference that (name removed) doesn't appear to recognize.

That is, this concept enshrines the rights of all individuals whereas if religion were to impose its values on the non-religious, it's concepts only recognize it's religious rights and not the rights of all individuals, particularly where the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are concerned.

This is the core of the fight going on right now between the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic extremists and the Secular Western State.

It's most obvious right now with the Islamists and their demand to restrict Freedom of Speech on the grounds that everyone should be required to follow their belief system by not "offending" them.

Yes. This is the real crux of their argument.

It's offensive to them, that non-Muslims don't follow their beliefs and therefore we should be required to follow their beliefs by not depicting Muhammed in an image.

The Christians have recently hopped on to this bandwagon, with their campaign to prevent the release of the new series on Comedy Central, called J.C, which will be poking some light-hearted fun at the Messiah and Dear Ole Dad.

Of course, the grounds are the same as the one's the Islamists give and the demand for accommodation is the same despite the rather hypocritical Christian objections when the Islamists do it.

No-one, according to these self-righteous souls, should be able to watch the show because it offends Christians.

The entire point of Freedom of Speech is to protect offensive speech. That is, the right of all of us to give expression to controversial positions on any topic.

This argument that the free speech of all should be curtailed on the grounds that it's offensive to the religious is absurd at best and insidious at worst.

It's nothing more than an underhanded attempt to impose religious values on the non-religious, or those of other religions, through the back door.

If the Islamist extremists aren't allowed to see personifications of Muhammed they don't have to read those newspapers that depict such personifications and if Christians are offended by a show like J.C, they don't have to watch it.

To demand that others can't is imposing their religious values on all of us.

The reasons why religious dogma would consider this an imposition and object to it are rather obvious.

To tie this in to the other topic we were discussing, this is also precisely why Interculturalism is a much better concept and why Multiculturalism is racist and divisive. The concepts are the same.

Interculturalism is founded on the concept of Inclusion and places civil law over and above all cultural and social beliefs, thereby removing cultural relativism as an option.

However, it does this within the context of recognizing the right of all to follow their culture as long as those cultural beliefs do not contravene existing law and/or violate anyone else's civil rights..

Multiculturalism is founded on the concept of Diversity and imposes cultural relativism.

The exception to this occurs in situations where certain (not all) criminal laws are violated. Other laws can be violated on the grounds of accommodationism.

However, this is inconsistently applied since by definition, not accommodating these beliefs (religious or cultural) is in contradiction to the fundamental concept of Multiculturalism.

These critical differences are based on the fundamental concepts advocated by each belief system.

Secularism and Interculturalism is Inclusive and speaks to the rights of all, religious and non-religious.

Multiculturalism and Religious accommodation are, by definition, culturally and religiously relativistic.