The critic of the debate between Muslims and Western liberals over the condemnation of Salman Rushdie suggests that those who cite freedom of speech as the first freedom are only expressing a personal view. The writer further suggests that the only way for an argument between two parties to be valid is when it is based on an appeal to considerations that are internal to the values and beliefs of the other party. He thus offers his own arguments which appeal to the aspirations of moderate Muslims. This view not only holds that there are no absolutes but that biases and cherished views are in fact culturally determined and that the only way to argue with a person of a different culture is by appeal to the cherished beliefs of that other culture. Thus, to argue with a Muslim, it is necessary to do so in terms of the other person's belief system. This seems a straightforward and sensible statement if it is taken as an admonition as to how to win an argument, meaning that the other person will not listen to you if you do not argue using his own terms and beliefs. It is less clear that this is necessary to make any criticism valid or a genuine argument, for it seems to give equal validity to all belief systems at some level so that one belief system cannot challenge as invalid the deeply held views of another. A consideration of the issue in terms of Nietzschean philosophy shows how difficult it is either to insist on one answer or to insist on the validity of all belief systems.
Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil comments on the tendency of psychologists to place the instinct for self-preservation in the role of the cardinal instinct of the organic being, but Nietzsche differs in this view and writes:
Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength--life itself is Will t...