NationStates Jolt Archive

Are there better, more civilized culutres as opposed to weaker, savage cultures, OR are there just DIFFERENT cultures?...explain...

Are there better, more civilized culutres as opposed to weaker, savage cultures, OR are there just DIFFERENT cultures?...explain...
I think that there are better cultures and worse ones. Why? I judge a culture by it's civil rights standards and how much it encourages learning and application of new knowledge. Western civilization tends to do pretty well by these standards. It does better in some places than in others, for example the fact that Texans can execute retarded criminals isn't anything to brag about, but all in all I'd rather live in a nation that has Western cultural values.

Better and worse by whose standards? By ours, theirs, or objectively?

Anyone who wants to argue that there are no objectively "better" cultures must argue that the culture of the United States (say, in the Deep South) circa 1800 is of the same value as modern US culture.

That is a difficult task.

As for the specifics of how we should judge different cultures, I can't really say. However, as long as slavery and freedom are not ethically equivalent there must be some difference.

I'll accept that challenge. If this is such a difficult task, it is clearly your own morality which judges the diffence. Of course, if this poll is asking if we think that something is objectively better, it's actually subjective, since nothing can be objectively judged... which pretty much eliminates any meaning from my original question.

OK, enough irrelevant philosophy. I think certain cultures are better based on how closely their ideals match my own.

Enough of this postmodernist "everything is subjective" bull. Let's look at which cultures spread out to other peoples, are most scientifically advanced, and guarantee the most choices and freedoms to their people. Those are not subjective criteria. They can be objectively measured. The third one is debatable as to it's objectivity, but I hold that it can still be quantified to some extent.

Western culture comes out on top.

Are there better, more civilized culutres as opposed to weaker, savage cultures, OR are there just DIFFERENT cultures?...explain...

If the people are happy, the culture is good. If the people aren't happy, the culture is bad.

I do have my ideals, and some cultures fit those better than others. Particularly the witchcraft incidents in Sub-Saharan Africa come to mind - that does make me cringe.

Of course, my ideals are hardly universal, and those people will probably see it differently (actually, the people there often just think that Westerners have more powerful Shamans), and su objectively, no, there are no better cultures.

Not that that will stop me from advocating trying to get rid of a few aspects of various cultures that I feel are wrong.

Let's look at which cultures spread out to other peoples

the ones with the best weapons and the least restraint in using them to slaughter people.

are most scientifically advanced

typically whoever was doing the above mentioned slaughter at that particular moment, but not necessarily

and guarantee the most choices and freedoms to their people

societies lacking classes and institutionalized coercion. almost certainly not the ones going on big conquests.

To each, their own culture is the best.

I understand somebody from another culture feeling that their own culture is the best. Although I may think differently, I can certainly understand the other person's feelings.

If the people are happy, the culture is good. If the people aren't happy, the culture is bad.
The people of Mesopotamia got the bulk of their nourishment from beer. I'm sure they were pretty pissed when the rivers dried out and the lush landscape turned to scrubland.

The British Empire is said to have brought the principles of science, engineering and economics to the 'uncivilised' lands it conquered. At this time, a large chunk of its population struggled to protect their homes from flooding with raw sewage when it rained, and the armies themselves were largely incapable of writing letters home due to illiteracy.

Different cultures. Some of them contribute to certain advancements, some don't, and these can only be evalueated subjectively. To the people living in them it's all good.

We can criticize certain elements from other cultures (like female circumsicion) based on elements from our own (human rights) but that doesn't mean the entire culture is bad or worse than our own.

Yes and no. Most cultures are different, but some are better and some are worse. The superiority or inferiority of a culture is measured in its contributions to the technological, economic, social, and political thought of human society.

the ones with the best weapons and the least restraint in using them to slaughter people.

typically whoever was doing the above mentioned slaughter at that particular moment, but not necessarily

societies lacking classes and institutionalized coercion. almost certainly not the ones going on big conquests.
I'm no cultural relativist by any stretch, but I have to agree with this guy. The best quote I heard on this was from Samuel P. Huntingdon - "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." As I said, I'm no relativist and I believe that western culture has time and time again proved its superiority. But it doesn't alter the reality of the situation - culture has mostly only been spread successfully with a sword or gun.

I'm no cultural relativist by any stretch, but I have to agree with this guy. The best quote I heard on this was from Samuel P. Huntingdon - "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." As I said, I'm no relativist and I believe that western culture has time and time again proved its superiority. But it doesn't alter the reality of the situation - culture has mostly only been spread successfully with a sword or gun.

I think trade has played a far greater role in the spread of ideas; after all, what followed the armies were the traders with their goods for sale. Even in places that wern't conquered, trade facilitated the spread of ideas, from the smallest mathematical innovations to entire religions. Be it through peace or war, I would say trade has formed the backbone of the dissemination of ideas; remember that trade is the main motivation for international communication and exploration.

It's difficult to label any given culture as superior or inferior because cultures represent complete systems of aesthetics and thus complete sets of standards. While there are better and worse societies (as societies operate in basically the same arena), cultures are valued by how much they are themselves.

I don't think there are any cultures that are better then others because the whole idea is dependent on the thinkers culture.

Most people are going to think their culture is great and the opposite is horrible so I don't think culture can really be judged.

I think that there is not such thing of better of worse cultures, all the cultures are simply different. There is no reason why the arabian culture could be worst than western or the western worst than the arabian, the cultures are only different perspectives.

There is a tendency among the weak minded to place a relative veiw on things and then propose this is the hard reality of life, hardly the case.

No culture is better then another or there would have existed throughout history a clear archtype--there does not.

True facts bear the fruit of that.

One dominant culture leads to the next.

It is called 'escalation', I refuse to call it adaptation because cultures do not evolve per'se rather they; like war or any conflict 'escalate'.

The underdog seeks to dominate, it does, then yet again the underdog seeks to dominate then it does, then yet again...rinse and repeat

The concept of a superior culture is directly linked ot the idea of a superior race, or breed if you will. No logical person would argue the falsity of that concept.

The concept of any type of moral or cultural superiority in this world is a complete farce.

For instance, some one mentioned 'Human Rights', since Human Rights are not FACT, but indeed opinion....you see where I am going.

The Majority decides, and since that is a dynamic situation there is no true superior culture, because at any point in history the opinion will change.

Its like saying which is the superior sand dune in a desert. You dont see it happening but that dune is shifting and changing right beneath your feet, and when you turn to bask in its superiorty it will be gone and another will have appeared else where.


IMHO

Enough of this postmodernist "everything is subjective" bull. Let's look at which cultures spread out to other peoples, are most scientifically advanced, and guarantee the most choices and freedoms to their people. Those are not subjective criteria. They can be objectively measured. The third one is debatable as to it's objectivity, but I hold that it can still be quantified to some extent.

Western culture comes out on top.

Totally and 100% agreed.

Totally and 100% agreed.
It's simplistic though.
While we might be able to measure how much freedom or scientific advances there are, it is ultimately still a matter of interpretation whether those are good things.

Other societies may value tradition, unity and so on. For them, that is a good, superior culture, and they might see us as going downhill in a chaotic, immoral puddle of mud.

It's simplistic though.
While we might be able to measure how much freedom or scientific advances there are, it is ultimately still a matter of interpretation whether those are good things.

Other societies may value tradition, unity and so on. For them, that is a good, superior culture, and they might see us as going downhill in a chaotic, immoral puddle of mud.

Agreed.

I think that there are better cultures and worse ones. Why? I judge a culture by it's civil rights standards and how much it encourages learning and application of new knowledge. Western civilization tends to do pretty well by these standards. It does better in some places than in others, for example the fact that Texans can execute retarded criminals isn't anything to brag about, but all in all I'd rather live in a nation that has Western cultural values.
I think you're confusing culture with system of law/government. I like the Western way better, too, but, hey, Germany is part of the Western world and they had the Nazis -- went from one of the most egalitarian, open societies to arguably history's most totalitarian and dysfunctional in almost the blink of an eye. Is that cultural? Or is it just the vagaries of massive social change?

I say there are only different cultures, but there are better and worse social/governmental systems.

Enough of this postmodernist "everything is subjective" bull. Let's look at which cultures spread out to other peoples, are most scientifically advanced, and guarantee the most choices and freedoms to their people. Those are not subjective criteria. They can be objectively measured. The third one is debatable as to it's objectivity, but I hold that it can still be quantified to some extent.

Western culture comes out on top.
I'm not arguing relativism, but I do think you're being subjective. And you're conflating government/law with culture.

Culture transcends government/law. Government/law may or may not express culture accurately. Both answer questions about how the group survives in the world, but government/law answers relatively short-term questions of narrow, pragmatic interest, whereas culture answers much deeper questions about how members of the group relate to each other and their world, how they define their identity as a group. Culture evolves but does not really change until it dies out. Government/law, on the other hand, is easily and often changed, for various reasons.

Government/law determines how much freedom, choice, information people get. Culture determines how much of those things they want and/or need. As long as those two are balanced, things go along smoothly. But if they clash, there's trouble.

Again, I like the Western way, so keep that freedom, choice, and information coming -- but that's in keeping with my ancestral Western culture, right along with individualism and egalitarianism. As much as I may think other cultures would benefit from this kind of thing, I have to acknowledge that they may want different things -- or they may want the same things but in different ways.

It's difficult to label any given culture as superior or inferior because cultures represent complete systems of aesthetics and thus complete sets of standards. While there are better and worse societies (as societies operate in basically the same arena), cultures are valued by how much they are themselves.
Exactly.

It's pointless to ask whether European culture is better than Andean culture. One is about Europeans, and the other is about Andeans. They are each complete and perfect within themselves, and there is no overlap between them. They don't compete with each other in order to fulfill their functions. There is no qualitative comparison.

I have to say theres cultures that are better then others. What with `cultures` that have yet to abolish slavery, and others that view women as less then men? I try not to judge any `culture` by anything other then its treatment of fellow humans. Same as I'd judge a pack of wolves with how the alpha treats the others.

my favourite culture is black cherry yoghurt.

I don't think that there are better or worse cultures, because tha would imply that it's possible to objectively measure cultures and eventually to find a perfect culture.

The value of a culture is something very subjective, as well as very complex, and can only be based on how much the desires of an individual are met by said culture.
Personally, I didn't like the German culture too much, so I left to live with the Irish culture. Neither is better than the other, it's just the one that I prefer. There are several million people who prefer the German culture, I'm sure.

Some cultures ARE better than other cultures. However, such a comparison is always entirely subjective.

This is made especially true since all cultures evolve. Hell, the 'Western Culture' has undergone rather interesting changes just in the last 30 years. So can we truly determine which wre great cultures on their age?

Some ancient cultures (oriental cultures, african cultures) have been around for thousands of years and have evolved slowly and little. They seem to take great pride in tradition. On the other hand, the Ancient Roman society seemed to be in a constant state of evolution as they integrated other cultures into their own. Western culture is remarkably similar.

I can only say for myself that of those two, I think I prefer rapidly evolving cultures. But that's a facet of my personality. To me, 'Because we've always done it this way' is a reason to do it differently.

Some cultures ARE better than other cultures. However, such a comparison is always entirely subjective.

This is made especially true since all cultures evolve. Hell, the 'Western Culture' has undergone rather interesting changes just in the last 30 years. So can we truly determine which wre great cultures on their age?

Some ancient cultures (oriental cultures, african cultures) have been around for thousands of years and have evolved slowly and little. They seem to take great pride in tradition. On the other hand, the Ancient Roman society seemed to be in a constant state of evolution as they integrated other cultures into their own. Western culture is remarkably similar.

I can only say for myself that of those two, I think I prefer rapidly evolving cultures. But that's a facet of my personality. To me, 'Because we've always done it this way' is a reason to do it differently.

Having lived in a very traditional background, I think that a great number of people find traditions to be reassuring, they regard it as something steady, reliable, and would feel very lost indeed if they had to keep pace with a fast-evolving culture.
It's all a matter of preference...

Non American: Different

Having lived in a very traditional background, I think that a great number of people find traditions to be reassuring, they regard it as something steady, reliable, and would feel very lost indeed if they had to keep pace with a fast-evolving culture.
It's all a matter of preference...

I agree that it's a matter of preference.

It's simplistic though.
While we might be able to measure how much freedom or scientific advances there are, it is ultimately still a matter of interpretation whether those are good things.

Other societies may value tradition, unity and so on. For them, that is a good, superior culture, and they might see us as going downhill in a chaotic, immoral puddle of mud.

But, could you really view a society that has total 100% universal sufferage and a society that still treats women like they are possesions and say that one is not better than the other? I mean sure...its all relative, but come on....stoning women or eating people is wrong wherever the hell it is.

I mean sure...its all relative, but come on....stoning women or eating people is wrong wherever the hell it is.

I see your point.

Now consider, that Right and Wrong are completely subjective, they are not constants(more accurately, universals).

Since they are not universal, then we can not apply them universally in an objective format.


So no, in reality there is no "Better of Worse" culture.
There are no savages, no barbarians, no heathens, there are just people who are different.

Negroes in this country 150 years ago were bought and sold because it was acceptable to veiw another culture and race a inferior.

Whites were slaves as well,

The Irish were treated like less then slaves, because of Culture alone.



Those things aside,
consider this.

The Western culture you hold so dear is steadfast in the equality of all.

So by supposing exceptions to that supposed constant you dillute the culture which are so eager to defend.


Doesnt matter, we are not objective creatures--even though I KNOW no culture is better then another--I am still completely biased.

I see your point.

Now consider, that Right and Wrong are completely subjective, they are not constants(more accurately, universals).

Since they are not universal, then we can not apply them universally in an objective format.


So no, in reality there is no "Better of Worse" culture.
There are no savages, no barbarians, no heathens, there are just people who are different.

Negroes in this country 150 years ago were bought and sold because it was acceptable to veiw another culture and race a inferior.

Whites were slaves as well,

The Irish were treated like less then slaves, because of Culture alone.



Those things aside,
consider this.

The Western culture you hold so dear is steadfast in the equality of all.

So by supposing exceptions to that supposed constant you dillute the culture which are so eager to defend.


Doesnt matter, we are not objective creatures--even though I KNOW no culture is better then another--I am still completely biased.

Well I simply cannot think this way, for one simple reason. The 10 commandments and the bible. They provide me with my view of right and wrong, good and evil, and better and worse and soceity that beats up women or a soceity where they sacrifice people IS worse than a western society because of it.