NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets first take a glance at a hypothetical culture. Though it will be hypothetical, it will have many parallels to things going on in third world countries. In this culture, Women can be raped by any man who chooses to, sold as slaves, forced to do menial labor for no compensation, and if they flee, they will be executed. Women and children can be beaten to death for displeasing their elders or males, and child molestation is considered the right of the father and anyone he chooses to allow acess to his children.

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that. As for moral relativism, it is basically saying that there is no such thing as morality, that it is simply a human construct, and that there is no reason we should act morally except to be able to better fit into our societies. If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.

Most people will not be this relativistic, and so they hold onto cultural relativism with the idea that we "shouldn't interfere", that we should let them so as they will in their own community, that we should let things "over there" run their course. I would urge these people to realize who they sound like. They sound like the voiceover of a wildlife film. This is the same justification for why we don't do something to save the antelope when a tiger is about to take it down. This sentiment is the same as treating the people involved as animals, incapable of their own moral judgements or rational thought. This is a far greater insult to members of other cultures than any judgement could be.

The whole point of the American sysem of justice was to escape all of the vagaries of religious and dogmatic moral systems and to embrace a core set of morals. Murder, rape, child molestation, slavery; these things are just wrong. They are either objectively wrong, or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that.

I can. I just do not consider them part of a culture I would like living in.

If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.

Almost right. I personally believe they are wrong because we as a society have devised a system that is stable and pleasant to live in which does not allow those things.

They are either objectively wrong, or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

Sure there is. You pointed it out yourself: society.

Ah, civilizing people from inferior cultures who posess inferior and inherently evil values, are we?

No offense, but this reeks of ethnocentrism and imperialism.

I believe there are some absolute wrongs. I can understand that people in some cultures are taught differently, and give them a little leeway, but that doesn't excuse all things.

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things.

I qualify, then.

Nothing is "inherently wrong"; it requires subjective judgment to render something wrong.

I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that.

I have never advocated cultural relativism, but I can.

As for moral relativism, it is basically saying that there is no such thing as morality, that it is simply a human construct,

Contradicting yourself does not help your case. A human construct is something, is it not?

and that there is no reason we should act morally except to be able to better fit into our societies. If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.

Straw man. To assert that "one ought to act according to one's society's standards" is itself a moral standard, and as such, to the genuine moral relativist, cannot be absolute.

Most people will not be this relativistic, and so they hold onto cultural relativism with the idea that we "shouldn't interfere", that we should let them so as they will in their own community, that we should let things "over there" run their course.

That is a separate position from moral relativism that can just as easily be advocated by a moral absolutist.

Murder, rape, child molestation, slavery; these things are just wrong. They are either objectively wrong, or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

False dichotomy. They can be subjectively wrong.

This whole thread will end up boiling down basic meta ethics. Where no conclusion will ever be made, as no one can confirm what ethics really is, weather it is objective or weather it is relative. Weather it is a language to describe harmful or protective acts or just nothing.

I think we should be using terms more like "violent, viscous, savage, helpful etc.. rather then moral or immoral to stop this thread descending into circles.

wow its easy to knock down strawmen!

perhaps, given the extreme model you have proposed, the title of your thread should be "why cultural relativism MAY be wrong", "why cultural relativism is hypothetically wrong" or even "why cultural relativism is relatively wrong"

i think that youll find that in "3rd world countries" those things are NOT accepted, they just occur. there are plenty of people in those societies who fight against all of those practices. therefore its not necessarily "cultural relativism" to support a culture where those things cant be prevented any more than it is correct to support the "culture" of mafia hitmen.

Where no conclusion will ever be made, as no one can confirm what ethics really is, weather it is objective or weather it is relative. Weather it is a language to describe harmful or protective acts or just nothing.

Why do you think so?

I qualify, then.

Nothing is "inherently wrong"; it requires subjective judgment to render something wrong.



I have never advocated cultural relativism, but I can.



Contradicting yourself does not help your case. A human construct is something, is it not?



Straw man. To assert that "one ought to act according to one's society's standards" is itself a moral standard, and as such, to the genuine moral relativist, cannot be absolute.



That is a separate position from moral relativism that can just as easily be advocated by a moral absolutist.



False dichotomy. They can be subjectively wrong.


Soheran: have I mentioned before that I learn something every single time you post?

*bows down in shock and awe*

But seriously, mucho admiration.

As to the OP itself: if it's a moralistic starting point you're after: who gave you the moral highground? The reason that there is an argument here is that we struggle with our own morals/beliefs in terms of a globalised perspective and as to whose 'morals' are best; yours, mine or Mr. Smith...

I don't know how I feel about FGM for example.

More specifically I despise it with all my being but I don't know how I can ascribe this position to tribes in parts of African countries who have practised it for thousands of years....

Although the author of this thread makes a good point, cultural reletavism is not inherently wrong either. It simply depends, for example, the culture he described could be called "wrong", and I would agree with human rights action being taken in that nation (not necessarily military action, note). However, this is an extreme, cultural reletavism is about the smaller differences, e.g., in some European countries the age of consent is lower, and drugs and prostitution are considered okay. Although some people might find this morally reprehensible, if you think about it levelly its not nearly the same as total elimination of children's and womens rights. It's all about moderation, cultural reletivity applies to the rule of moderation as mcuh as anything else.

Why do you think so?

Because it is impossible to test ethics emperically. Yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Although the author of this thread makes a good point, cultural reletavism is not inherently wrong either. It simply depends, for example, the culture he described could be called "wrong", and I would agree with human rights action being taken in that nation (not necessarily military action, note). However, this is an extreme, cultural reletavism is about the smaller differences, e.g., in some European countries the age of consent is lower, and drugs and prostitution are considered okay. Although some people might find this morally reprehensible, if you think about it levelly its not nearly the same as total elimination of children's and womens rights. It's all about moderation, cultural reletivity applies to the rule of moderation as mcuh as anything else.

I agree 100% with the post above.


The OPer is taking culteral relativism to its utmost extreme, I am skeptical that there exists a man who holds the beliefs he mentions.

Ah, civilizing people from inferior cultures who posess inferior and inherently evil values, are we?

No offense, but this reeks of ethnocentrism and imperialism.

Ah, simply allowing people to be raped and murdered, without so much as a word of protest, because we shouldn't "Interfere with their culture".

No offense, but this sounds like the late Steve Irwin while filming a croc eat an antilope.

morality and justice should not be simply tossed out because the people in question have a culture that allows it.

To be a moral relativist is to deny any real reason for compassion, for caring, for charity.

Can you honestly look at a person who is trying to escape a region in which she has been enslaved and raped, and will be killed if captured, and do nothing unless she makes it into a more caring society? Shouldn't culture, at the very least, imply consent, and shouldn't we, at the very least, be working to free those who would rather be members of another culture?

Because it is impossible to test ethics imperically. Yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thats empirically. ;)

[/Grammar Nazi]

Although the author of this thread makes a good point, cultural reletavism is not inherently wrong either. It simply depends, for example, the culture he described could be called "wrong", and I would agree with human rights action being taken in that nation (not necessarily military action, note). However, this is an extreme, cultural reletavism is about the smaller differences, e.g., in some European countries the age of consent is lower, and drugs and prostitution are considered okay. Although some people might find this morally reprehensible, if you think about it levelly its not nearly the same as total elimination of children's and womens rights. It's all about moderation, cultural reletivity applies to the rule of moderation as mcuh as anything else.

I meant to discuss extreme cases, primarily. I was talking primarily not about morals, but about justice. A 14 year old being allowed to have sex is not necessarily unjust. One being forced to by their parents in exchange for money is unjust, and should be stopped if at all possible.

Thats empirically. ;)

[/Grammar Nazi]

I knew it!

Ah, civilizing people from inferior cultures who posess inferior and inherently evil values, are we?

No offense, but this reeks of ethnocentrism and imperialism.


hey, if preventing young girls from having to go through genital mutilation because it is part of their culture is wrong...then i don't want to be right.

or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

See? Now I don't even have to say anything. You've done the work for me. :D

To be a moral relativist is to deny any real reason for compassion, for caring, for charity.

Can you honestly look at a person who is trying to escape a region in which she has been enslaved and raped, and will be killed if captured, and do nothing unless she makes it into a more caring society? Shouldn't culture, at the very least, imply consent, and shouldn't we, at the very least, be working to free those who would rather be members of another culture?

Can you honestly make an argument without erecting a straw-man?

Because it is impossible to test ethics imperically.

That is a meta-ethical conclusion in itself, yes?

Yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, it doesn't. But if it can't be tested empirically and can't be derived through logic, it probably doesn't have the status of objective fact (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that.

What do you mean? NS is filled with people who think that we have no right to tell another culture that they can not murder, rape, torture, enslave, etc., anyone they want.

Ah, civilizing people from inferior cultures who posess inferior and inherently evil values, are we?

No offense, but this reeks of ethnocentrism and imperialism.

If ethnocentrism and imperialism have positive effects in reducing the occurence of rape and abuse, as well reducing child trafficking, then I'm a damn dirty Empire-fiend.

Rebel scum!

That is a meta-ethical conclusion in itself, yes?


Meh


No, it doesn't. But if it can't be tested empirically and can't be derived through logic, it probably doesn't have the status of objective fact (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

Many might argue with the bolded part. Some might believe that the definition of ethics is to protect human life and prevent suffering or death etc... Now by following these guidelines society benefits correct?

So not only are you defining what ethics is, but you are providing a motive for it as well. Though there are some loose ends with this theory...

Soheran: have I mentioned before that I learn something every single time you post?

Thank you for saying so.

If ethnocentrism and imperialism have positive effects in reducing the occurence of rape and abuse, as well reducing child trafficking, then I'm a damn dirty Empire-fiend.

Rebel scum!

When and where did ethnocentrism and imperialism have positive effects in reducing occurences of rape and abuse?

In India? NO
In South Africa? NO

And now in Afghanistan or in Sudan? NO

We can all agree that patriarchal constructs are 'bad' and that FGM or rape is wrong but is it your right to force this onto another people's culture? That does NOT mean sit back and accept it either. Neither condone nor unthinkingly condem.

The problem I have is what to actually do beyond mere rhetoric....

Many might argue with the bolded part. Some might believe that the definition of ethics is to protect human life and prevent suffering or death etc...

Why is that the definition of ethics? What if my code of behavior is otherwise?

Now by following these guidelines society benefits correct?

"Benefit" is subjective. And while society may benefit, the moral agent may not.

So not only are you defining what ethics is, but you are providing a motive for it as well.

Motive, yes - but I can provide a "motive" for going around stealing and killing, too.

What is necessary is a justification (why ought I act to benefit society, or even myself?), and that logic alone cannot provide.

Neither condone nor unthinkingly condem.

Unthinkingly condemn? What is there another side to being able to treat people like that? Something positive can come out of it?

Unthinkingly condemn? What is there another side to being able to treat people like that? Something positive can come out of it?

Profit and higher populations. (Though the last one can occasionally be bad.)

I meant to discuss extreme cases, primarily. I was talking primarily not about morals, but about justice. A 14 year old being allowed to have sex is not necessarily unjust. One being forced to by their parents in exchange for money is unjust, and should be stopped if at all possible.

Let's put this scenario into Thailand... her prostitution keeps the family alive and feeds and clothes her brothers and sisters.
I don't believe people should ever be forced to do anything they don't want, but that only works in a perfect world. Circumstances force people to do things others consider immoral every day.

Why is that the definition of ethics? What if my code of behavior is otherwise?


Thats one of the loose ends, however that type of ethics is the most common. As it exists in most governments and in the UN.


"Benefit" is subjective. And while society may benefit, the moral agent may not.


How is benefit subjective?


Motive, yes - but I can provide a "motive" for going around stealing and killing, too.


But probably not a moral one.


What is necessary is a justification (why ought I act to benefit society, or even myself?), and that logic alone cannot provide.

Well you are basicly asking why be moral, rather then why is this moral. If benefiting society is moral, and you are asking why you ought to benefit society: you are asking why you ought to be moral.

Unthinkingly condemn? What is there another side to being able to treat people like that? Something positive can come out of it?

Unthinkingly condemn: If one were to say 'this is wrong. I have never seen anything more wrong. I believe it to be wrong. Now I must change it.'

Surely this is not a position that a rational-minded person can take? It just leads to invasions, war, deaths of innocent civilians...oh dear, the spectre of empire once again...

That's not to say we shouldn't condemn it. Just don't then decide that we are right and they are wrong and invade the damn country.

Although we also shouldn't do what I know Free shepmagans would like to do which is ignore anyone outside of America all together. (No offense :) )

Thats one of the loose ends, however that type of ethics is the most common. As it exists in most governments and in the UN.
How is benefit subjective?
But probably not a moral one.
Well you are basicly asking why be moral, rather then why is this moral. If benefiting society is moral, and you are asking why you ought to benefit society: you are asking why you ought to be moral.


Man you sound like you go to Sussex University Hydesland...Would I be right?

Although we also shouldn't do what I know Shep would like to do which is ignore anyone outside of America all together. (No offense :) )

None taken. I never said ignore anyone outside of America, just take care of our own first... then see who we can strip mine.

Thats one of the loose ends, however that type of ethics is the most common. As it exists in most governments and in the UN.

So?

How is benefit subjective?

What you consider to be a benefit, I may not consider to be a benefit.

But probably not a moral one.

Circular. You are trying to establish morality; you cannot do so by distinguishing between moral and immoral motives, for to do so would be to assume your conclusion.

Well you are basicly asking why be moral, rather then why is this moral. If benefiting society is moral, and you are asking why you ought to benefit society: you are asking why you ought to be moral.

No, I'm not. The moral course of action in a given circumstance is what I ought to do in that circumstance; that is the idea behind moral obligation. If I have no obligation to do that action in that circumstance, then it is not the moral (or at least not the only moral) course of action in that circumstance.

Profit and higher populations. (Though the last one can occasionally be bad.)

I should know better then to ask for a silver lining in situations like these...

Though with the mass murders it would be hard to keep the population up. I don't think the pregnancies coming from the rapes will make up for it.

Can you honestly make an argument without erecting a straw-man?

That wasn't a strawman. I am arguing primarily against people who would stand back and do nothing, who advocate never interfering in anothers culture, no matter what forms of injustice go on there. I don't give a damn that the drinking age in canada is 18, or that the age of consent in france is 14 (I think) or that pot is legal in Amsterdam. I'm talking about real injustices here.

I should know better then to ask for a silver lining in situations like these...

Though with the mass murders it would be hard to keep the population up. I don't think the pregnancies coming from the rapes will make up for it.

True. Mass Murders are bad for business... oh well we can always stripmine the place after troop strength wanes right?

Unthinkingly condemn: If one were to say 'this is wrong. I have never seen anything more wrong. I believe it to be wrong. Now I must change it.'

Surely this is not a position that a rational-minded person can take? It just leads to invasions, war, deaths of innocent civilians...oh dear, the spectre of empire once again...

That's not to say we shouldn't condemn it. Just don't then decide that we are right and they are wrong and invade the damn country.

Although we also shouldn't do what I know Free shepmagans would like to do which is ignore anyone outside of America all together. (No offense :) )

Sure, invasion isn't the only possible resolution to nations who commit these horrendus acts. But civilized nations should do SOMETHING. Moral relativists can try to shrug these acts off but anyone who has any kind of sense "right" knows doing these things is wrong.

Moral relativists can try to shrug these acts off but anyone who has any kind of sense "right" knows doing these things is wrong.

Why do you think moral relativists don't have "any kind of sense 'right'"?

It seems to me that they would merely argue that such moral judgments are relative.

Sure, invasion isn't the only possible resolution to nations who commit these horrendus acts. But civilized nations should do SOMETHING. Moral relativists can try to shrug these acts off but anyone who has any kind of sense "right" knows doing these things is wrong.

See the conversation between soheran and hyde:

Whose moral/ethical sense of right and wrong will you abide by when making this judgement?

A strict Muslim/Jew sees women wearing bikinis as immoral and wrong. Does that make it so?

True. Mass Murders are bad for business... oh well we can always stripmine the place after troop strength wanes right?

Hmmm. Well, in the case of Iraq I'm sure that the country doesn't have the pesky laws that we do so after the savages kill each other off we can loot the country and scram. It is the way of the world right?

Then again we could try to stop invading countries for no reason but that would be more difficult...

See the conversation between soheran and hyde:

Whose moral/ethical sense of right and wrong will you abide by when making this judgement?

A strict Muslim/Jew sees women wearing bikinis as immoral and wrong. Does that make it so?

As long as you don't physically hurt anyone then what is the problem? They can see it as wrong but trying to compare that to rape and murder is nonsense.

They can see it as wrong but trying to compare that to rape and murder is nonsense.

Only if you presuppose your own moral standard.

There are plenty of people who think the moral distinction between harmful crimes and victimless crimes is untenable.

As long as you don't physically hurt anyone then what is the problem? They can see it as wrong but trying to compare that to rape and murder is nonsense.

Why? You are still ascribing your own morals to the debate.


In a strict reading of the Qu'uran that is what it boils down to. Maybe a better example is the part of Leviticus where it states Homosexuals should be bloodstoned to death. A practice common in some countries and not in our own. Yet 'morally' many agree with it - does that mean that they are right or that we who do no want to kill all gay people are right?


I'm not saying I neccessarily disagree with you but that is the essence of moral relativism is it not?

That wasn't a strawman. I am arguing primarily against people who would stand back and do nothing, who advocate never interfering in anothers culture, no matter what forms of injustice go on there. I don't give a damn that the drinking age in canada is 18, or that the age of consent in france is 14 (I think) or that pot is legal in Amsterdam. I'm talking about real injustices here.

Unfortunately the aren't any people who would stand back and do nothing while a murder/rape takes place in front of them. To do so would be inhuman.

I really can't argue against pure moral relativism, because it, like moral objectivism, is an assumption. All I can do is expose what cultural relativism really is: either pure moral relativism, or the belief that the other culture are not, in fact, people, and thus we should not interfere with them. Moral relativism is the absense of any belief in real morality or justice. If you do something because it will make you better able to live in your society, you are doing it out of selfishness, and not out of morality.

All I can do is expose what cultural relativism really is: either pure moral relativism, or the belief that the other culture are not, in fact, people, and thus we should not interfere with them.

I thought "cultural relativism" was what cultural supremacists called anyone who didn't agree with their stance on which cultures are "inferior" and which are "superior." At least that's the operational definition that I've seen.

Why? You are still ascribing your own morals to the debate.


In a strict reading of the Qu'uran that is what it boils down to. Maybe a better example is the part of Leviticus where it states Homosexuals should be bloodstoned to death. A practice common in some countries and not in our own. Yet 'morally' many agree with it - does that mean that they are right or that we who do no want to kill all gay people are right?


I'm not saying I neccessarily disagree with you but that is the essence of moral relativism is it not?

People may believe that but it hardly makes it right. It may be argued that "morality" is simply opinion and I suppose I can see how some may believe that. Fine. That doesn't mean that those who are further advanced culturally should tolerate when others decide to abuse the rights of their fellow human beings. People may try to argue that we have no right to stop them but I would say that is ridiculous. Allowing such injustice would make us just as bad as those who commit these acts. Saying that you don't agree with their brutality but then shrug and say that we have no right to do anything is hardly a road I'd want us to go down.

I really can't argue against pure moral relativism, because it, like moral objectivism, is an assumption.

No, it isn't. There are excellent arguments for moral relativism. Just because you haven't heard them (or have ignored them when you have) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Moral relativism is the absense of any belief in real morality or justice.

No, it is the position that beliefs regarding justice or morality are fundamentally relative to the individual or to a culture. (I think the latter position is incoherent.)

If you do something because it will make you better able to live in your society, you are doing it out of selfishness, and not out of morality.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with moral relativism.

Nothing is inherently wrong, therefore your entire argument collapses. Morality is entirely subjective.

I thought "cultural relativism" was what cultural supremacists called anyone who didn't agree with their stance on which cultures are "inferior" and which are "superior." At least that's the operational definition that I've seen.

Cultural Relativism is also the reasoning given by people who are advocating noninterventionism because they feel we shouldn't interfere in another's culture. I'm not saying any culture is inferior or superior, just that some include unjust practices that should be abolished.

People may believe that but it hardly makes it right. It may be argued that "morality" is simply opinion and I suppose I can see how some may believe that. Fine. That doesn't mean that those who are further advanced culturally should tolerate when others decide to abuse the rights of their fellow human beings. People may try to argue that we have no right to stop them but I would say that is ridiculous. Allowing such injustice would make us just as bad as those who commit these acts. Saying that you don't agree with their brutality but then shrug and say that we have no right to do anything is hardly a road I'd want us to go down.


I agree up to a point. I don't want to stand and watch: the person that can do that is an appalling human being but it needs to be thought through in terms of what you are coming up against.

Yes I believe morality is strictly opinion. There is no guiding morality: as an atheist living in Britain I have very different morals to a christian in America. The problem is exposed right there.

We should stop the abuse of women worldwide, for example, on a level and even-handed basis. How can we judge other cultures when our own (British in my case) favour men in rape cases in court? (Based on the fact that mere vaginal tearing is not sufficient to convict without a DNA sample as well)

One cannot simply assume that these cultures are savage, uneducated sub-humans who have no concpet of human decency: we are all products of our societies...the question that is begged from what you are saying is, from your own moralistic standpoint what would you do, for example, in Ethiopia where the abuse of women exists predominately within strict patriarchal tribal structures that have lasted thousands of years? (Bearing in mind the awful destruction that colonialism caused the now non-tribalistic sections of the country.

Cultural Relativism is also the reasoning given by people who are advocating noninterventionism because they feel we shouldn't interfere in another's culture. I'm not saying any culture is inferior or superior, just that some include unjust practices that should be abolished.

I've never heard cultural relativism defined as political isolationism before. Frankly, I think the term is bunk.

The ultimate problem, logically, for using moral relativism to advocate noninterventionism, is that if there is no objective morality by which a person should be expected to live, there is no reason to expect us not to intervene in other cultures. If there's no reason to oppose injustices in other cultures, why is there any reason to oppose one cultures' desire to change another?

One cannot simply assume that these cultures are savage, uneducated sub-humans who have no concpet of human decency: we are all products of our societies...the question that is begged from what you are saying is, from your own moralistic standpoint what would you do, for example, in Ethiopia where the abuse of women exists predominately within strict patriarchal tribal structures that have lasted thousands of years? (Bearing in mind the awful destruction that colonialism caused the now non-tribalistic sections of the country.

Education would seem to be the thing to do in such a circumstance. But in a world that is getting smaller and smaller it is not as if such cultures do not know that there is a better way to treat people. If after much pushing they do not begin to treat people correctly then perhaps stronger measures are needed. When you get down to it a brutal culture "not knowing any other way" doesn't fly after a point.

Ah, civilizing people from inferior cultures who posess inferior and inherently evil values, are we?

No offense, but this reeks of ethnocentrism and imperialism.

On the contrary, it seems to me like he wants to stay away from those people, and wants those people to stay away from him.

No imperialism threre.

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that. As for moral relativism, it is basically saying that there is no such thing as morality, that it is simply a human construct, and that there is no reason we should act morally except to be able to better fit into our societies.
your absolutely right, there really isnt any defined "morals". They are a societal construct.

If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.
absolutely, only a moron would think this isnt the case. A moron, or someone with no clue on the how the world and people work.

Most people will not be this relativistic, and so they hold onto cultural relativism with the idea that we "shouldn't interfere", that we should let them so as they will in their own community, that we should let things "over there" run their course. I would urge these people to realize who they sound like. They sound like the voiceover of a wildlife film. This is the same justification for why we don't do something to save the antelope when a tiger is about to take it down.
Its not my place. I dont believe in stopping the "genocide" in Darfur any more than I believe in stopping a lion from getting its meal.

This sentiment is the same as treating the people involved as animals, incapable of their own moral judgements or rational thought. This is a far greater insult to members of other cultures than any judgement could be.
No, I am treating people as people. YOur the one treating them as animals saying they dont know what morality is and that those in the west are the ones able to decide morality.

and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.
there are reasons like laws and the fact its proper in our society. the key part of that is OUR, not others.

on a side note. Please get off your pompious high horse in which you think you own morality. Its people like O'Reilly and apparently you that think they know whats best for everyone that pisses me off more than anything else is this world, even more than murderers and rapists.

Education would seem to be the thing to do in such a circumstance. But in a world that is getting smaller and smaller it is not as if such cultures do not know that there is a better way to treat people. If after much pushing they do not begin to treat people correctly then perhaps stronger measures are needed. When you get down to it a brutal culture "not knowing any other way" doesn't fly after a point.

Tell that to the great swathes of China where they have never seen a white face and (no thanks to Google) are kept entirely in the dark over the outside world; or the tribes I was describing to whom explorer Bruce Parry was the first white they had met in twenty years (yes I saw it on the television sorry). In that same documentary we saw women being whipped by men as part of a coming of age ritual. This guy Parry was appalled: he asked the women what they thought of the whipping and they replied that "to not be whipped would be unthinkable; like saying that we are no longer a part of the tribe."

He did then go to a nearby town (slightly larger village with a school run by blacks - important) where he met a girl from the village who had been educated in a government school, had refused to be whipped and was kicked out of the village.

Having said that, yes, I agree education is important and the right way to go about reducing this kind of injustice but I still think that we need to decide if we have the moral courage to decree that WE are civilised and that WE are right. I'm not sure. Again I 'll say it: Where is it written that we (the West) have the moral highground in this world?

On the contrary, it seems to me like he wants to stay away from those people, and wants those people to stay away from him.

No imperialism threre.

What? When did I say "I want those people to stay away from me?"
The hell did you pull this from?
What I said was that there are objective rules of basic justice that should be adhered to, no matter what culture one belongs to, and that when one sees someone not adhering to these rules (for instance, committing rape, murder, slavery, ect) then one should intervene in order to stop that from happening, if at all possible, so long as the intervention will not cause more damage than the current situation already does.

your absolutely right, there really isnt any defined "morals". They are a societal construct.

absolutely, only a moron would think this isnt the case. A moron, or someone with no clue on the how the world and people work.


Its not my place. I dont believe in stopping the "genocide" in Darfur any more than I believe in stopping a lion from getting its meal.

No, I am treating people as people. YOur the one treating them as animals saying they dont know what morality is and that those in the west are the ones able to decide morality.

there are reasons like laws and the fact its proper in our society. the key part of that is OUR, not others.

on a side note. Please get off your pompious high horse in which you think you own morality. Its people like O'Reilly and apparently you that think they know whats best for everyone that pisses me off more than anything else is this world, even more than murderers and rapists.

The fact that there's millions of innocent people are getting killed for no good reason doesn't bother you at all? Hm..

Reductio ad absurdum does not work against cultural relativism.

What? When did I say "I want those people to stay away from me?"
The hell did you pull this from?
What I said was that there are objective rules of basic justice that should be adhered to, no matter what culture one belongs to, and that when one sees someone not adhering to these rules (for instance, committing rape, murder, slavery, ect) then one should intervene in order to stop that from happening, if at all possible, so long as the intervention will not cause more damage than the current situation already does.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I thought you wanted to correct abuses like these in your own society, and still consider them immoral even though some aspects of them are considered part of an ethnic group's culture-something I fully agree with.

However, I didn't think that you wanted to intervene in nations like Iraq, for example, to change how things are run over there.

The fact that there's millions of innocent people are getting killed for no good reason doesn't bother you at all? Hm..

no it really doesnt bother me at all. Its an African problem to which Africans must find a solution.

So?



What you consider to be a benefit, I may not consider to be a benefit.



Circular. You are trying to establish morality; you cannot do so by distinguishing between moral and immoral motives, for to do so would be to assume your conclusion.



No, I'm not. The moral course of action in a given circumstance is what I ought to do in that circumstance; that is the idea behind moral obligation. If I have no obligation to do that action in that circumstance, then it is not the moral (or at least not the only moral) course of action in that circumstance.

Sorry for the long delay with the reply there was a computer crash or something.

Anways, this is exactly what I said was going to happen. We could go on like this for ever and never reach a definate conclusion which is why i think we should probably use less subjective words like violent rather then immoral or wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I thought you wanted to correct abuses like these in your own society, and still consider them immoral even though some aspects of them are considered part of an ethnic group's culture-something I fully agree with.

However, I didn't think that you wanted to intervene in nations like Iraq, for example, to change how things are run over there.

Sure I would like to intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and many other places. But only if such intervention would not cause more damage than the original situation. If we could honestly march into North Korea and free the people there, I'd be all for that, if it would actually work.

no it really doesnt bother me at all. Its an African problem to which Africans must find a solution.

There's no solution in sight, though. Situations like Darfur are exactly what the UN was made for, and at the very least the UN should take forceful action against Sudan. Countries like America don't necessarily have to intervene, but not caring about it does seem more than a little heartless to me, to be frank with you.

Sure I would like to intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and many other places. But only if such intervention would not cause more damage than the original situation. If we could honestly march into North Korea and free the people there, I'd be all for that, if it would actually work.

Oh, I see. So I take it you were for the invasion of Iraq? Do you think it has made the situation worse or better?

There's no solution in sight, though. Situations like Darfur are exactly what the UN was made for, and at the very least the UN should take forceful action against Sudan. Countries like America don't necessarily have to intervene, but not caring about it does seem more than a little heartless to me, to be frank with you.

I'm not a heartless person, it just doesnt bother me too much when people die. Its a part of life, especially in Africa.

no it really doesnt bother me at all. Its an African problem to which Africans must find a solution.

It is a problem that affects the whole world, with sorrow and missery. With fueds and enemies being made. I believe we have an obligation to strive for world peice rather then world destruction, and so I think the only way we can do that is to aid people to help solve their troubles.

so tacky!

Again I 'll say it: Where is it written that we (the West) have the moral highground in this world?

No one is perfect but at the moment I don't see Western governments actively promoting things like murder and rape and the other offences to humanity. I think the West is in a much better position to tell others how to behave. Unless believing that the actions that they take are considered to be acceptable. You have to draw a line somewhere.

no it really doesnt bother me at all. Its an African problem to which Africans must find a solution.

I wasn't going to rise to it but..........

When the US was attacked on 9/11 she sent out a call to its allies, including Japan, Poland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (hahahaha) etc to help her. Sudan does not have this option. Yet you do not care despite this? American and Indian arms manufacturers are arming the Sudanese government which in turn arms the janjaweed which is committing genocide. Yet you do not care despite this? Finally, it is colonialism that has thrown the hotch-potch of cultures and tribes together under the false nation of Sudan and created this situation: It's not an African problem it is a world problem.



Let me get this one thing straight: many aspects of the subjugation of women, homosexuals and children are cultural and need focusing on as to whether we have the right to change them - this example is entirely different as it is Western made.

I'm not a heartless person, it just doesnt bother me too much when people die. Its a part of life, especially in Africa.

When people die from disease, or even from malnutrition, it's natural. When people die from getting their heads hacked off, that is a cause for concern, IMO.

To be sure, Africa isn't the most comfortable place in the world, and many abuses occur there, but that's no reason to give up and turn a blind eye.

Perhaps you haven't seen any of the images of suffering that go on in Darfur? I highly urge you to google Darfur...right now.

There is something missing here in the discussion. We are all stipulating that all the nasty things like rape are inherently immoral. I will grant that I would never want to be raped, nor would I like to see someone I love raped, but we need to separate our visceral reactions from the discussion and look at what makes something immoral.

Let’s ask about rape. It seems many people are saying, this is the list of all things immoral. Rape is on the list, therefore it is immoral. Why is rape on this list? Why is consensual sex not on the list? Simply affirming the list because the list contains immoral things is circular.

So we have to have a reason for things to be on the list in order for it to be logically valid. For charity’s sake, I will provide one answer (I will also analyze others if presented): Rape is immoral because it removes personal choice from the act of sex, and removing personal choice is immoral. A skeptic my respond, we have no evidence of the existence of choice (justification for this claim is another paper). So if choice is an illusion, all sex is rape because we have no choices. Such analysis can be applied to almost all cases of moral absolutist claims.

This means that we have no GOOD JUSTIFICATION for supporting one moral view over another. Lack of an objective standard makes it false to assign one set of beliefs a higher moral standard. The relativist is not claiming that morality does not exist, rather they are claiming there is no way of evaluating what is and is not moral, in effect making everything moral (or immoral depending on how you look at it).

GCz

I wasn't going to rise to it but..........

When the US was attacked on 9/11 she sent out a call to its allies, including Japan, Poland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (hahahaha) etc to help her. Sudan does not have this option. Yet you do not care despite this? American and Indian arms manufacturers are arming the Sudanese government which in turn arms the janjaweed which is committing genocide. Yet you do not care despite this? Finally, it is colonialism that has thrown the hotch-potch of cultures and tribes together under the false nation of Sudan and created this situation: It's not an African problem it is a world problem.
Let me get this one thing straight: many aspects of the subjugation of women, homosexuals and children are cultural and need focusing on as to whether we have the right to change them - this example is entirely different as it is Western made.

First of all, what are you losing big time?:p

Secondly, I don't know much about the history of Sudan, but you can't blame this entirely on the West. No one told those people they have to hack each other to pieces.

There's no solution in sight, though. Situations like Darfur are exactly what the UN was made for, and at the very least the UN should take forceful action against Sudan. Countries like America don't necessarily have to intervene, but not caring about it does seem more than a little heartless to me, to be frank with you.

The situation in Dafur is exactly the kind of example where others need to intervene to try to restore some kind of peace, stability and the correct treatment of human beings. Allowing such horrors to occur there is something that should be avoided. But I guess the West does not have the will to go in there and do something. Sitting back and moaning seems to suffice.

Let me get this one thing straight: many aspects of the subjugation of women, homosexuals and children are cultural and need focusing on as to whether we have the right to change them - this example is entirely different as it is Western made.

let me make it simple for you. We dont.

btw, I've heard your examples before and no, I really dont care about Darfur.

There is something missing here in the discussion. We are all stipulating that all the nasty things like rape are inherently immoral. I will grant that I would never want to be raped, nor would I like to see someone I love raped, but we need to separate our visceral reactions from the discussion and look at what makes something immoral.

Let’s ask about rape. It seems many people are saying, this is the list of all things immoral. Rape is on the list, therefore it is immoral. Why is rape on this list? Why is consensual sex not on the list? Simply affirming the list because the list contains immoral things is circular.

So we have to have a reason for things to be on the list in order for it to be logically valid. For charity’s sake, I will provide one answer (I will also analyze others if presented): Rape is immoral because it removes personal choice from the act of sex, and removing personal choice is immoral. A skeptic my respond, we have no evidence of the existence of choice (justification for this claim is another paper). So if choice is an illusion, all sex is rape because we have no choices. Such analysis can be applied to almost all cases of moral absolutist claims.

This means that we have no GOOD JUSTIFICATION for supporting one moral view over another. Lack of an objective standard makes it false to assign one set of beliefs a higher moral standard. The relativist is not claiming that morality does not exist, rather they are claiming there is no way of evaluating what is and is not moral, in effect making everything moral (or immoral depending on how you look at it).

GCz

I find it very hypocritical that in the opening statement, you said that you don't want any of your loved one's to be raped, but then went on to justify it when done to other people. This means you realize implicitly that rape is immoral, yet you're justifying it because you're saying we, as mere humans, are in no position to judge morality.

That my friend, is called Orwellian logic.

let me make it simple for you. We dont.

btw, I've heard your examples before and no, I really dont care about Darfur.

So you don't care that millions of people are being forced to suffer horifically. Is there anything you care about whatsoever?

The situation in Dafur is exactly the kind of example where others need to intervene to try to restore some kind of peace, stability and the correct treatment of human beings. Allowing such horrors to occur there is something that should be avoided. But I guess the West does not have the will to go in there and do something. Sitting back and moaning seems to suffice.

Absolutely. The difference between this and what we were just discussing is huge though. I think we may have been at cross purposes. I believe that we should restore the points you raise above in the Sudan: it is a war zone. However, what I was referring to before was imbedded cultural differences between Eastern and Western countries that, perhaps, we don't have the right to change. For example, in Pakistan (a military dictatorship I know but still) or in Afghanistan.

let me make it simple for you. We dont.

btw, I've heard your examples before and no, I really dont care about Darfur.

google those images yet?

To be sure, Africa isn't the most comfortable place in the world, and many abuses occur there, but that's no reason to give up and turn a blind eye.
to me it is

Perhaps you haven't seen any of the images of suffering that go on in Darfur? I highly urge you to google Darfur...right now.

I've the pictures and videos of the people dead or dying. But I've seen lots of dead people, the ones in Darfur arent special. Im just not going to lose sleep at night seeing some kid in Africa starving to death, sorry.

So you don't care that millions of people are being forced to suffer horifically. Is there anything you care about whatsoever?

yep. Myself, my country, and thats about it except for my mom.

The situation in Dafur is exactly the kind of example where others need to intervene to try to restore some kind of peace, stability and the correct treatment of human beings. Allowing such horrors to occur there is something that should be avoided. But I guess the West does not have the will to go in there and do something. Sitting back and moaning seems to suffice.

...or just not caring.

I actually have more respect for Soviestan for admitting that he doesn't care about Darfur than I do for suits like Kofi Annan and all the politicians who incessantly go on about it, but will puss out from actually doing anything about it.

I find it very hypocritical that in the opening statement, you said that you don't want any of your loved one's to be raped, but then went on to justify it when done to other people. This means you realize implicitly that rape is immoral, yet you're justifying it because you're saying we, as mere humans, are in no position to judge morality.

That my friend, is called Orwellian logic.

Ok, Disreguard that part of the post and respond: WHY IS RAPE IMMORAL?

yep. Myself, my country, and thats about it except for my mom.

What do you mean "your country", do people from another country not deserve care? Simply because they are not living in the same area of land as you?

to me it is


I've the pictures and videos of the people dead or dying. But I've seen lots of dead people, the ones in Darfur arent special. Im just not going to lose sleep at night seeing some kid in Africa starving to death, sorry.

Alright, then, I've tried every trick I know. If you still don't care, then there's nothing I can do.

I guess you can go back to watching MTV while kids in Darfur are starving and getting hacked to pieces, then.

Ok, Disreguard that part of the post and respond: WHY IS RAPE IMMORAL?

You know the answer yourself. You said you wouldn't want to be raped or have your family member raped. Anyway, if you sincerely wanted to know why it's immoral, I wouldn't even bother answering.

I can understand if you think things like arranged marriages are not immoral, or the fact that women and homosexuals have few, if any rights in some cultures, but you can't go through life thinking rape is not immoral, unless you're a psychopath.

However, you have implicitly acknowledged that it is immoral, so I see no need to answer your question. The answer is in you.

First of all, what are you losing big time?:p

Secondly, I don't know much about the history of Sudan, but you can't blame this entirely on the West. No one told those people they have to hack each other to pieces.

I am losing everything big TIme, but I'll hopefully have it back next week.
As to why I blame the West: It is the same as Rwanda; prior to colonisation the Hutus and Tootsies (literally the servants and the masters, bet you didn't know that) did not live under one government in one country, they did not have guns and they did have minor inter-village (there being a lot of hutu and tootsie villages) battles: then they do live in the same country with guns and you get genocide. In Sudan it is worse as there are more than 20 different races/tribes who historically have always fought each other across borders now living in one absolutely massive country under one government that has decided to kill everyone - I'd say the West has to take a large slice of responsibility - but you are right, not all.

Just to demonstrate, here is a list of some of the peoples who have been thrown together and are now ethnically cleansing each other either as a part of the muslim janjaweed or as one of the big four rebel groups:

People of Sudan:

Ja'alein
Arakeien
Shigia
Rubatab
Shokrya
Ababda
Azande
Baggara peoples
Beja tribe
Dinka tribe
Luo tribe
Fulbe (Fulani) people
Fur people
Hawsa
Horefaen
Mahas
Manasir tribe
Masalit
Nuba peoples
Nuer tribe
Rashaida people
Zaghawa

yep. Myself, my country, and thats about it except for my mom.

Your poor mother, being as large as c-o-untry

There is something missing here in the discussion. We are all stipulating that all the nasty things like rape are inherently immoral. I will grant that I would never want to be raped, nor would I like to see someone I love raped, but we need to separate our visceral reactions from the discussion and look at what makes something immoral.

Let’s ask about rape. It seems many people are saying, this is the list of all things immoral. Rape is on the list, therefore it is immoral. Why is rape on this list? Why is consensual sex not on the list? Simply affirming the list because the list contains immoral things is circular.

So we have to have a reason for things to be on the list in order for it to be logically valid. For charity’s sake, I will provide one answer (I will also analyze others if presented): Rape is immoral because it removes personal choice from the act of sex, and removing personal choice is immoral. A skeptic my respond, we have no evidence of the existence of choice (justification for this claim is another paper). So if choice is an illusion, all sex is rape because we have no choices. Such analysis can be applied to almost all cases of moral absolutist claims.

This means that we have no GOOD JUSTIFICATION for supporting one moral view over another. Lack of an objective standard makes it false to assign one set of beliefs a higher moral standard. The relativist is not claiming that morality does not exist, rather they are claiming there is no way of evaluating what is and is not moral, in effect making everything moral (or immoral depending on how you look at it).

GCz

This is a good post, although the skeptic in me would just ask why allowing choice is inherently moral.

But you should definitely expect this to fly over everyone's heads.

EDIT:

For example:

RocktheCasbah
I find it very hypocritical that in the opening statement, you said that you don't want any of your loved one's to be raped, but then went on to justify it when done to other people. This means you realize implicitly that rape is immoral, yet you're justifying it because you're saying we, as mere humans, are in no position to judge morality.

That my friend, is called Orwellian logic.


There are usually some pretty good threads going around though, so stick around.

You know the answer yourself. You said you wouldn't want to be raped or have your family member raped. Anyway, if you sincerely wanted to know why it's immoral, I wouldn't even bother answering.

I can understand if you think things like arranged marriages are not immoral, or the fact that women and homosexuals have few, if any rights in some cultures, but you can't go through life thinking rape is not immoral, unless you're a psychopath.

However, you have implicitly acknowledged that it is immoral, so I see no need to answer your question. The answer is in you.

Ok, for charity’s sake, I’ll add the reason why I would not want to see someone I love be raped. 1) I don’t want to see people I love be harmed.
2) Rape Caues harm.
--------------
3) I don’t want to see people I love be raped.

This is the case I would make. Note, I haven’t added anything in here about MORALITY, just a statement of preference.

Now let me try to add in morality.

1) It is immoral to cause hare to someone I love
2) Rape causes harm
-------------------
3) Rape is immoral.

I know of no other way to state premise 1 so that the argument will be valid to take it from a statement of preference to a statement of morality. If you do, please add it.

GCz

Ok, for charity’s sake, I’ll add the reason why I would not want to see someone I love be raped. 1) I don’t want to see people I love be harmed.
2) Rape Caues harm.
--------------
3) I don’t want to see people I love be raped.

This is the case I would make. Note, I haven’t added anything in here about MORALITY, just a statement of preference.

Now let me try to add in morality.

1) It is immoral to cause hare to someone I love
2) Rape causes harm
-------------------
3) Rape is immoral.

I know of no other way to state premise 1 so that the argument will be valid to take it from a statement of preference to a statement of morality. If you do, please add it.

GCz

See above conversation between Hype and Soheran re morality and ethics and then try and apply same logic: will be quite hard. :)

Interesting points though...

Sorry for the long delay with the reply there was a computer crash or something.

Anways, this is exactly what I said was going to happen. We could go on like this for ever and never reach a definate conclusion which is why i think we should probably use less subjective words like violent rather then immoral or wrong.

Yes, we could - but it would not be rational to do so, because the notion of objective morality is simply incoherent.

There is no way to demonstrate an obligation. They only exist in our subjective sentiments.

See above conversation between Hype and Soheran re morality and ethics and then try and apply same logic: will be quite hard. :)

Interesting points though...

I'm having a little trouble locating a salient moral point being made by either side, but there is a lot posts, and a lot of garbage in between. If someone could clarify this, I would be happy to at least attempt to address moral claims. GCz

Yes, we could - but it would not be rational to do so, because the notion of objective morality is simply incoherent.

There is no way to demonstrate an obligation. They only exist in our subjective sentiments.

I'm not sure about the idea of morality being an obligation. Rather it being an act which is good, rather then an act we ought to do.

Some people say that good is the act we ought to do in so much as if we want to acheive peice, protection of life etc... If we don't want to acheive that, we don't want to be good. Nobody says that you can't want to be wrong.

I'm having a little trouble locating a salient moral point being made by either side, but there is a lot posts, and a lot of garbage in between. If someone could clarify this, I would be happy to at least attempt to address moral claims. GCz


I'm afraid the task is slightly beyond me. I can clarify my own garbage but to boil down the interesting stuff they were talking about is beyond me.

Essentially the issue at stake is not the application of morals but the application of something else entirely. And before that even, it is about the very existence of said morals from an objective/subjective standpoint.

Actually that's not what they were talking about at all. Sorry. That was what I was talking about, I'm not well at all, sorry.

I'm not sure about the idea of morality being an obligation. Rather it being an act which is good, rather then an act we ought to do.

Some people say that good is the act we ought to do in so much as if we want to acheive peice, protection of life etc... If we don't want to acheive that, we don't want to be good. Nobody says that you can't want to be wrong.

"Good" is subjective.

You might find maximizing happiness to be good, but I might find maximizing suffering to be good. On what purely rational basis can you say that I am wrong and you are right?

"Good" is subjective.

You might find maximizing happiness to be good, but I might find maximizing suffering to be good. On what purely rational basis can you say that I am wrong and you are right?

This is where moral principles or broad moral beliefs need to be added into the conversation (e.g. maximize happiness). It has been my contention (and yours) than none exist.

"Good" is subjective.

You might find maximizing happiness to be good, but I might find maximizing suffering to be good. On what purely rational basis can you say that I am wrong and you are right?

It's not about what you find to be good, but what it is by definition. If you look at most culture, the idea of the ultimate good almost always boils down to complete absence of suffering, complete peace and happyness etc... That is what good is by definition.

In so far as, the idea of pain almost always relates to actions which cause a certain response in the nervous system.

Thats just one of many theories anyway.

This is where moral principles or broad moral beliefs need to be added into the conversation (e.g. maximize happiness). It has been my contention (and yours) than none exist.

I dsipute 'none exist' and rather put them in the eye of the beholder, which has the same effect.

If moral principles are individual (arising, if you will, depending on your belief, from sociological factors) and not defined by a 'moral majority' then we have the same situation as none existing.

Edit: Not explained very well, sorry. In addition, returning to the OP slightly, one might not recognise broad morals as existing but rather very specific morals being of higher import.

Most importantly, I think soheran makes it clearest in sayinng "who has the moral/ethical right to say I am right and you are wrong?" Again I reiterate that I feel it is about establishing whether or not any society has the right to a moral highground.

Oh, I see. So I take it you were for the invasion of Iraq? Do you think it has made the situation worse or better?

No, I wasn't for the invasion of Iraq, because it seemed incredibly likely we would do more harm then good. If I had thought we could remove sadaam and bring Iraq to peace without the excesses of bloodshed our current plan has caused, I'd have been all for it. In this case, the cost in both the lives of our soldiers, and the lives of Iraqi civilians, was far to high, mostly as a result of incompetent leadership.

Why is it that whenever i fail to toe the party line exactly, I get accused of being a bushite? Have we become so polarized that people cannot concieve of a person neither agreeing with them or their opposition?

In any case, I wasn't talking primarily about war, though it is one option when considering intervention.

This is where moral principles or broad moral beliefs need to be added into the conversation (e.g. maximize happiness). It has been my contention (and yours) than none exist.

No objective ones, no.

If moral principles are individual (arising, if you will, depending on your belief, from sociological factors) and not defined by a 'moral majority' then we have the same situation as none existing.

Why?

My moral standards do not always coincide with what I wish to do, and the effort to do what is moral definitely alters my behavior considerably.

It's not about what you find to be good, but what it is by definition. If you look at most culture, the idea of the ultimate good almost always boils down to complete absence of suffering, complete peace and happyness etc... That is what good is by definition.

No, it isn't. It's just what most societies have designated as "good." So what?

Again I reiterate that I feel it is about establishing whether or not any society has the right to a moral highground.

Talking about "right" already presupposes your own "moral highground."

That actually doesn't bother me. We cannot do other than presuppose the morality of what we consider to be moral, and there is nothing wrong with acting on it.

No, it isn't. It's just what most societies have designated as "good." So what?

If they didn't call it good, they would just find some other word for it. However the principle still remains.

If they didn't call it good, they would just find some other word for it. However the principle still remains.

No, you are missing the point.

I am not saying that "good" is subjective because it is just a sound, and that we can attach whatever definition we want to it.

I am saying that the concept that "good" represents is subjective when applied to material reality; that is, while "good" meaning "positive" or "virtuous" is not subjective, "good" including maximizing happiness (or suffering) is.

I dsipute 'none exist' and rather put them in the eye of the beholder, which has the same effect.

If moral principles are individual (arising, if you will, depending on your belief, from sociological factors) and not defined by a 'moral majority' then we have the same situation as none existing.

Edit: Not explained very well, sorry. In addition, returning to the OP slightly, one might not recognise broad morals as existing but rather very specific morals being of higher import.

Most importantly, I think soheran makes it clearest in sayinng "who has the moral/ethical right to say I am right and you are wrong?" Again I reiterate that I feel it is about establishing whether or not any society has the right to a moral highground.


I think you may be right, moral principles may rise out of a community consensus. I apologize; I’ve been using imprecise language in this discussion. I mean to say that there is no such thing as a moral principle that is floating out in the platonic ether. It seems to me there is no way for the moral absolutist to avoid such an existential claim.

This brings me to a second criticism of the moral absolutist: Even if one grants that there are moral principles, there seems no way for the human experience to interact with them. We have no moral sense to perceive morality. The way we interact with a light source is through our eyes sensing photons. If there is such a thing as a moral, does it emit morons (play on photons) which we interact with?

GCz

Why?

My moral standards do not always coincide with what I wish to do, and the effort to do what is moral definitely alters my behavior considerably.

True. But that is your above point in different language. I'm simply attempting to define objective morality as a form of collective ethics and subjective morality as what you describe here, something that brings about a personal change in character etc. I'm not saying I neccessarily agree with it as a statement but we are still talking about the definition of morality a propos to what the OP called 'cultural relativism' are we not?

Are you dismissing objective or subjective morality?

And on your second point as to my use of the word right - I disagree. I think my worry there lies in an inability to take the moral highground rather than the fact that I already have done so. I am refusing to committ either way on what I perceive (perhaps moralistically) as cultural factors, precisely because I don't feel I have the moral highground. Can it be a moralistic decision to deny oneself the right to comment?

No, you are missing the point.

I am not saying that "good" is subjective because it is just a sound, and that we can attach whatever definition we want to it.

I am saying that the concept that "good" represents is subjective when applied to material reality; that is, while "good" meaning "positive" or "virtuous" is not subjective, "good" including maximizing happiness (or suffering) is.

I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that the idea of good meaning positive or virtuous is subjective. But the idea that maximizing happiness is not positive or virtuous to everyone?

True. But that is your above point in different language. I'm simply attempting to define objective morality as a form of collective ethics and subjective morality as what you describe here, something that brings about a personal change in character etc.

Collective ethics are just as subjective, they are just widely shared.

I'm not saying I neccessarily agree with it as a statement but we are still talking about the definition of morality a propos to what the OP called 'cultural relativism' are we not?

I thought we were just talking about the character and definition of morality, regardless of what the OP said.

Are you dismissing objective or subjective morality?

I accept subjective morality and deny objective morality.

I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that the idea of good meaning positive or virtuous is subjective.

Is not subjective.

But the idea that maximizing happiness is not positive or virtuous to everyone?

Yes - the association of maximizing happiness with virtue and goodness is subjective.

[QUOTE=Soheran;11822947]Collective ethics are just as subjective, they are just widely shared.QUOTE]


Not neccessarily. If we take something like a strongly held set of religious beliefs amongst a group, there need not neccessarily be a subjective point to their morals for there to be a collective ethic: rather they are operating from some sort of bizarre objectively moral standpoint, with no form of subjectivity between issues...I'm just clarifying you understand.

I find cultural relativism more of an amusement than anything. One one side you have the radical gay rights movements and what a lot of right wing American pundits like to call feminazis. These have traditionally been some of the greatest friends of the left from the good old days of student radicalism in the 60s. Then on the other side you have the cultural relativists of the new left who think that every culture should be respected, even if that culture tolerates child abuse, executes homosecuals and gives women all the social status of a camel.

Then we see the left get embroiled in their petty little squabbles over which set of whiners they should pander to. Always a funny thing to see.

Not neccessarily. If we take something like a strongly held set of religious beliefs amongst a group, there need not neccessarily be a subjective point to their morals for there to be a collective ethic: rather they are operating from some sort of bizarre objectively moral standpoint, with no form of subjectivity between issues...I'm just clarifying you understand.

Why are the moral implications of religious beliefs any less subjective?

Why should I obey God's will, or follow the natural ends He has implanted within me, or whatever attempted justification is made?

I think you may be right, moral principles may rise out of a community consensus. I apologize; I’ve been using imprecise language in this discussion. I mean to say that there is no such thing as a moral principle that is floating out in the platonic ether. It seems to me there is no way for the moral absolutist to avoid such an existential claim.

This brings me to a second criticism of the moral absolutist: Even if one grants that there are moral principles, there seems no way for the human experience to interact with them. We have no moral sense to perceive morality. The way we interact with a light source is through our eyes sensing photons. If there is such a thing as a moral, does it emit morons (play on photons) which we interact with?

GCz

I think I agree with you on both levels as I wished we could define morals. However, the very existence of a moral absolutist surely renders our position difficult? They can say that yes, due to my very strong moral viewpoint, I can see a moral here and I can see a moral here etc etc

Yes - the association of maximizing happiness with virtue and goodness is subjective.

That is attatching a sound to an idea though really. As virtue and goodness are the samething, you are basicly saying goodness has no definition.

That is attatching a sound to an idea though really. As virtue and goodness are the samething, you are basicly saying goodness has no definition.

No, I'm not.

It has a definition, because it references a concept of propriety that we possess; we understand what the term is getting at. The meaning of goodness itself is thus not subjective; it is merely the question of what things are good that is.

let me make it simple for you. We dont.

btw, I've heard your examples before and no, I really dont care about Darfur.

So let me get this straight:

You believe that people of one culture may have a right to abuse women and children, sell people into slavery, and so on, but you don't think that people of another culture have a right to do anything about it?

At what point does your subjective morality objectively dictate that cultures should never intervene in each other's affairs?

Why are the moral implications of religious beliefs any less subjective?

Why should I obey God's will, or follow the natural ends He has implanted within me, or whatever attempted justification is made?

You shouldn't. That's my point I suppose. I find them objective in that they are a blanket: "Here is the Bible, it is your moral code to follow on any subject." Hence the potentiality for the existence of objective morals as I think we are defining them. I'm not saying I have any objective morals but it could be argued that subscribing to religious beliefs or political ideologies means that you have a set of morals laid out for you to use on any given SUBJECT, creating subjectivity. A very simplistic definition of subjectivity is required obviously...

I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that the idea of good meaning positive or virtuous is subjective. But the idea that maximizing happiness is not positive or virtuous to everyone?

The definition of good is objective, what qualities the concept of "good" applies to is not.

We can definitively say what good is, but we can't definitively say what is good.

I think I agree with you on both levels as I wished we could define morals. However, the very existence of a moral absolutist surely renders our position difficult? They can say that yes, due to my very strong moral viewpoint, I can see a moral here and I can see a moral here etc etc

I think it may be interesting to try to define what a moral is. Here is a stab at a component definition.

A moral is universal in application, is evaluative, not situational, and deals with issues of right or wrong action.

This is an initial Stab, so correct it and tell me exactly how wrong this is

GCz

You shouldn't. That's my point I suppose.

Why shouldn't I? (I agree that we shouldn't, but this proposal is just as subjective as the alternative.)

I find them objective in that they are a blanket: "Here is the Bible, it is your moral code to follow on any subject." Hence the potentiality for the existence of objective morals as I think we are defining them.

That is not "objective" - I can throw the blanket into the fire and proceed to violate half the laws in the Bible, and there is no way anyone can demonstrate to me, through reason and empirical evidence alone, that what I did was wrong.

They must appeal to my subjective sentiments. If my subjective sentiments (or propositions derived from them) include "obey God" and they convince me that God in fact exists and wrote the Bible, then I might follow the laws within it - but then they are still not objective, for my acceptance of them is based on subjective notions.

Thats empirically. ;)

[/Grammar Nazi]
That's "that's". :)

Lets first take a glance at a hypothetical culture. Though it will be hypothetical, it will have many parallels to things going on in third world countries. In this culture, Women can be raped by any man who chooses to, sold as slaves, forced to do menial labor for no compensation, and if they flee, they will be executed. Women and children can be beaten to death for displeasing their elders or males, and child molestation is considered the right of the father and anyone he chooses to allow acess to his children.

Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that. As for moral relativism, it is basically saying that there is no such thing as morality, that it is simply a human construct, and that there is no reason we should act morally except to be able to better fit into our societies. If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.

Most people will not be this relativistic, and so they hold onto cultural relativism with the idea that we "shouldn't interfere", that we should let them so as they will in their own community, that we should let things "over there" run their course. I would urge these people to realize who they sound like. They sound like the voiceover of a wildlife film. This is the same justification for why we don't do something to save the antelope when a tiger is about to take it down. This sentiment is the same as treating the people involved as animals, incapable of their own moral judgements or rational thought. This is a far greater insult to members of other cultures than any judgement could be.

The whole point of the American sysem of justice was to escape all of the vagaries of religious and dogmatic moral systems and to embrace a core set of morals. Murder, rape, child molestation, slavery; these things are just wrong. They are either objectively wrong, or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

Spot on, you absolutely right!

Why shouldn't I? (I agree that we shouldn't, but this proposal is just as subjective as the alternative.)



That is not "objective" - I can throw the blanket into the fire and proceed to violate half the laws in the Bible, and there is no way anyone can demonstrate to me, through reason and empirical evidence alone, that what I did was wrong.

They must appeal to my subjective sentiments. If my subjective sentiments (or propositions derived from them) include "obey God" and they convince me that God in fact exists and wrote the Bible, then I might follow the laws within it - but then they are still not objective, for my acceptance of them is based on subjective notions.

But, in throwing the blanket into the fire you are destroying the objectivity of the situation. You have created a subjective mind that can distinguish morally different situations, rather than apply one root set of laws to each moral problem. I think it's a question of whether moral objectivity is linked to a notion of neutrality or to being unspecific.

As to your subjective sentiments, I think that is a very good point. To me it begs the question whether or not some people can have subjective morals and others objective morals as defined by their belief system (religious or otherwise).

Lets first take a glance at a hypothetical culture. Though it will be hypothetical, it will have many parallels to things going on in third world countries. In this culture, Women can be raped by any man who chooses to, sold as slaves, forced to do menial labor for no compensation, and if they flee, they will be executed. Women and children can be beaten to death for displeasing their elders or males, and child molestation is considered the right of the father and anyone he chooses to allow acess to his children.

Well, usually rape is not condoned in any culture in the world. Unfortunately, it some cultures, it is quite difficult to "prove" that a rape occurred(For instance, needing males witnesses to the actual rape itself), but is almost never seen as right or just(as a norm).

Slavery, on the other hand, has had many different reasons for existance. For instance, in many cultures, if you were to raid a city, you could enslave whomever you wished as "spoils of war". And those that you conquered would do the same to you. They weren't seen as property, per se, but were instead conquered people. In some cultures, slaves are given considerable rights and privelages. Only some cultures(Such as in recent American History) were slaves seen as non-humans.

And rarely, in any culture, is beating a woman a cultural norm, or culturally accepted. Really, this is stretching the ideas of what is "bad" in a culture to hte most extreme, of which nothing like this "example" culture exists, either now or in the past...

And child molestation is never, at least as far my knowledge goes, considered cultural acceptable. A girl may be considered a girl at a younger age than in ours, but for all intensive purposes they are PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY women in their cultures. So... yeah. I'm not sure what culture would allow child molestation, but it sure as hell is not one that exists now or in the past.



Now someone would have to be an absolute moral relativist to believe that rape, slavery, murder, and child molestation are not inherantly wrong things. I doubt that most advocating cultural relativists could really say that. As for moral relativism, it is basically saying that there is no such thing as morality, that it is simply a human construct, and that there is no reason we should act morally except to be able to better fit into our societies. If you are a moral relativist, you believe that the only reason you should not rape a woman you desire, or kill a man, or indulge in pedophilia, is because society around you has trained you so.

And someone would have to be completely irrational to believe that the most extreme, and completely illogical, example of a culture is a good way to support their own morality. Morality is a part of our culture, as it is a part of thier. Just because they may have different "morals" than you does not mean theirs are worse than yours. I could name a number of things which are now considered cultural norms in our society, which can easily be said to be immorral in other societies.

Rape is not a cultural norm, anywhere. Child molestation is not a cultural norm, anywhere. Murder is not a cultural norm anywhere. These, in all cultures, are usually punished greatly. Only Slavery can be considered cultural acceptable, and one must understand the reasons behind it, to understand why it is culturally acceptable.


Most people will not be this relativistic, and so they hold onto cultural relativism with the idea that we "shouldn't interfere", that we should let them so as they will in their own community, that we should let things "over there" run their course. I would urge these people to realize who they sound like. They sound like the voiceover of a wildlife film. This is the same justification for why we don't do something to save the antelope when a tiger is about to take it down. This sentiment is the same as treating the people involved as animals, incapable of their own moral judgements or rational thought. This is a far greater insult to members of other cultures than any judgement could be.

No, the reason is because of trying to mold other cultures to a better fit to our own(Because there is nothing that could happen with forcing one's own culture onto another...Africa... North America... India... etc... etc... etc), and it almost always ends up terrible.


The whole point of the American sysem of justice was to escape all of the vagaries of religious and dogmatic moral systems and to embrace a core set of morals. Murder, rape, child molestation, slavery; these things are just wrong. They are either objectively wrong, or nothing at all is wrong, and there is no reason at all to treat other people in a civil manner.

Ah, the moral jargon. Well, Murder, for instance, has changed in terms of morality throughout our history, and as times changed so has our ideas on murder. Slavery, was originally allowed in our first justice system... it only changed after much time.

A nice try for ethnocentrism, but really it fails on one key point:

Different cultures have different morals. And your "example" is not even remotely representative of any culture, anywhere. Thus, you have no point to make.

But, in throwing the blanket into the fire you are destroying the objectivity of the situation. You have created a subjective mind that can distinguish morally different situations, rather than apply one root set of laws to each moral problem. I think it's a question of whether moral objectivity is linked to a notion of neutrality or to being unspecific.

Morality is not "objective" if it requires subjective acceptance of it.

As to your subjective sentiments, I think that is a very good point. To me it begs the question whether or not some people can have subjective morals and others objective morals as defined by their belief system (religious or otherwise).

The only way you can reach moral positions from the factual propositions of a belief system is by applying your subjective sentiments to it; otherwise, you run into the is-ought problem.

I think it may be interesting to try to define what a moral is. Here is a stab at a component definition.

A moral is universal in application, is evaluative, not situational, and deals with issues of right or wrong action.

This is an initial Stab, so correct it and tell me exactly how wrong this is

GCz

I suppose morality is just a case of seeing what is right and what is wrong. The tricky part is the 'universal in application' bit. That's the very essence of moral relativism isn't it? My morals are different to yours in every situation and some people may evaluate things before deciding on a moral viewpoint - subjectivity...I'm starting to see soheran's point a little clearer...

Morality is not "objective" if it requires subjective acceptance of it.



The only way you can reach moral positions from the factual propositions of a belief system is by applying your subjective sentiments to it; otherwise, you run into the is-ought problem.

Yes. But what of those who don't get the opportunity to achieve subjective sentiments due to their culture upbringing - the Amish or an orthodox Jew for example?

Yes. But what of those who don't get the opportunity to achieve subjective sentiments due to their culture upbringing - the Amish or an orthodox Jew for example?

They do have subjective sentiments - their subjective sentiments are merely the ones indoctrinated into them by their culture.

The only way you can reach moral positions from the factual propositions of a belief system is by applying your subjective sentiments to it; otherwise, you run into the is-ought problem.

there really ought to be some short hand for this entire argument. like just saying 'hume!' or something.

there really ought to be some short hand for this entire argument. like just saying 'hume!' or something.

I think philosophy has enough jargon as it is.

But it does get tedious repeating it over and over and over again.

Yes. But what of those who don't get the opportunity to achieve subjective sentiments due to their culture upbringing - the Amish or an orthodox Jew for example?

You really think you have the "opportunity" to achieve subjective sentiments? Your culture has, believe it or not, indoctrined you with what you believe to be morally acceptable. You seem to forget that you yourself live in a certain culture, of which there are cultural norms and what is and is not culturally acceptable.

People are funny folk.

We can all agree that patriarchal constructs are 'bad'

No, we can't. If such a construct brings about a net gain in the ability of people to live free and happy then to me it would be a good thing.

Morality is a purely intellectual construct. Since humans are highly intellectual beings (stop that laughing!), the definition and expression of morality are chief among our concerns, provided it doesn't interfere with our ability to survive or, for many, our ability to get what we want when we want it. While the Bible, for example, has sections detailing what one can and can't eat, which may have been derived for relevant reasons at the time, e.g. avoiding disease or preventing people from fighting and hurting one another over scarce creatures as coveted food resources, and the Koran has detailed instructions for how one should take a piss in any of several scenarios, these things are certainly not universally moral in application. If we lived in an area where the only food source around for several days travel happened to be pork, there would certainly be a sect of Muslims who loved them some hog.

It seems that just about everyone here, including the original poster, believes that while certain rights or wrongs may be culturally relative, there happens to be a least common ethical denominator. Examples already posted include random murder, rape, slavery and exploitation of children. These and other things are generally agreed to be bad because 1) people imagining themselves as the victims in such a scenario recognize that they would be duly pissed off about it and 2) the short term gains for the individual create far larger long term losses for civilization and the continuance of the species. But even these are not absolute, as there are some who at least pretend that they don't care what happens to them or who actually enjoy being recipients of pain and suffering, and others who honestly don't believe that the human species should be continued. Moral or immoral, if these people commit violent acts against others then our options are to accept it and do nothing, and possibly perish, or else, paradoxically, to violently oppose them in order to prevent their goals from being attained. Again, this is all purely intellectual, as the people who are, say, building and detonating nuclear devices with the intent of annihilating mankind honestly believe that is what they are here to do and believe that anyone who wants to survive is delusional and wrong. I disagree with them, and if I find anyone crazy enough to attempt such a thing I will do everything in my power to hamper his ability to do so, but that doesn't make me right, just popular, I would imagine, with the mass of those who want to live.

Spot on, you absolutely right!

No, no he's not. He has taken a completely imaginary culture, of which does not even remotely represent any other culture in the world, be it now or in the past, and is trying to using this completely imaginary, and completely unrealistic, "example" to support his ideals of ethnocentrism and cultural elitism.

They do have subjective sentiments - their subjective sentiments are merely the ones indoctrinated into them by their culture.

I agree. There really is no argument. Philisophically though there is the question of objectivity. Are we defining it by neutrality or by ambiguity. I'm with you totally I'm simply suppositioning about the concept of moral choices and codes as dictated by others. To me moral objectivity (should it exist as a theoretical concept) would be defined as someone's subjective moral values being defined by an ambigous set of moral values (The Bible, The Communist Manifesto etc) which don't neccessarily pertain to each individual situation but do give a nn objective moral standpoint from which to comment.

Having said that, I do, as ever, wholeheartedly agree.

Hey, remember when I got all confused between anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist and said you might be an anarcho-capitalist? Ouch did you bite me then...

I think philosophy has enough jargon as it is.

tell me about it - my metaphysics class is starting to kill me. not only is it jargony for no good reason, but in a desperate attempt to come off less wacky it appears that metaphysicians have taken up writing as if it was all symbolic logic all the time.

No, we can't. If such a construct brings about a net gain in the ability of people to live free and happy then to me it would be a good thing.

Morality is a purely intellectual construct. Since humans are highly intellectual beings (stop that laughing!), the definition and expression of morality are chief among our concerns, provided it doesn't interfere with our ability to survive or, for many, our ability to get what we want when we want it. While the Bible, for example, has sections detailing what one can and can't eat, which may have been derived for relevant reasons at the time, e.g. avoiding disease or preventing people from fighting and hurting one another over scarce creatures as coveted food resources, and the Koran has detailed instructions for how one should take a piss in any of several scenarios, these things are certainly not universally moral in application. If we lived in an area where the only food source around for several days travel happened to be pork, there would certainly be a sect of Muslims who loved them some hog.

It seems that just about everyone here, including the original poster, believes that while certain rights or wrongs may be culturally relative, there happens to be a least common ethical denominator. Examples already posted include random murder, rape, slavery and exploitation of children. These and other things are generally agreed to be bad because 1) people imagining themselves as the victims in such a scenario recognize that they would be duly pissed off about it and 2) the short term gains for the individual create far larger long term losses for civilization and the continuance of the species. But even these are not absolute, as there are some who at least pretend that they don't care what happens to them or who actually enjoy being recipients of pain and suffering, and others who honestly don't believe that the human species should be continued. Moral or immoral, if these people commit violent acts against others then our options are to accept it and do nothing, and possibly perish, or else, paradoxically, to violently oppose them in order to prevent their goals from being attained. Again, this is all purely intellectual, as the people who are, say, building and detonating nuclear devices with the intent of annihilating mankind honestly believe that is what they are here to do and believe that anyone who wants to survive is delusional and wrong. I disagree with them, and if I find anyone crazy enough to attempt such a thing I will do everything in my power to hamper his ability to do so, but that doesn't make me right, just popular, I would imagine, with the mass of those who want to live.

Define free and happy. Then look at the whole thread and you will see the problem in that sentence.

This whole thread will end up boiling down basic meta ethics. Where no conclusion will ever be made, as no one can confirm what ethics really is, weather it is objective or weather it is relative. Weather it is a language to describe harmful or protective acts or just nothing.

I think we should be using terms more like "violent, viscous, savage, helpful etc.. rather then moral or immoral to stop this thread descending into circles.
Who's talking about the weather, and why would it be anything other than hot, cold, rainy, and sunny?

You really think you have the "opportunity" to achieve subjective sentiments? Your culture has, believe it or not, indoctrined you with what you believe to be morally acceptable. You seem to forget that you yourself live in a certain culture, of which there are cultural norms and what is and is not culturally acceptable.

People are funny folk.

I'm not saying I have not been 'indoctrinated' with certain sentiments as an atheist, left-leaning member of British society; merely that it would be easier for me to achieve a different set of moral values than someone brought up within a culture that DICTATED one's morals to the letter - something that can obliterate the possibility of subjective sentiments. But seriously this is all supposition and perhaps it should now be left to die....

No, no he's not. He has taken a completely imaginary culture, of which does not even remotely represent any other culture in the world, be it now or in the past, and is trying to using this completely imaginary, and completely unrealistic, "example" to support his ideals of ethnocentrism and cultural elitism.

Right...
So there's no accepted child molestation going on in thailand right now?
So women arn't being raped with no recourse in the middle east?
So men being allowed to kill their wives for displeasing them in many countries, including many in the middle east, is not murder? or are you trying to say it isn't happening, or isn't santioned by their culture?

My hypothetical simply combined all of these in order to deal with them all at once.

You are assuming I have an agenda. I don't. I am simply refuting what seems to me is a phrase people hide behind when justifying doing nothing in situations like sudan and darfur.

Define free and happy. Then look at the whole thread and you will see the problem in that sentence.

free  /fri/ adjective, fre‧er, fre‧est, adverb, verb, freed, free‧ing.
–adjective
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people.

hap‧py  /ˈhæpi/ –adjective, -pi‧er, -pi‧est.
1. delighted, pleased, or glad, as over a particular thing: to be happy to see a person.

I disagree again. I do not see any problems with "that" sentence, assuming you meant my second one where I explained why I disagreed with your statement, though you quoted my entire post, which was composed of many sentences. Except for the idea I raised earlier that some people are happy bringing misery, pain and death to others, and who might find themselves in a position of power within a patriarchal construct and use that position to bring misery, pain and death to others, I don't see any mutual exclusion between "patriarchal constructs" and the ability of people within such a construct to live free and happy. I'm not suggesting there are a plethora of examples to be had of such a situation, just that by definition there is nothing saying we must have one at the expense of the other.

And I'm not sure why you think I haven't read the entire thread, or what effect you think it would have on my belief that people could be happy living within a "patriarchal construct." Perhaps you might clear things up by defining what you mean by "patriarchal constructs."

And I'm not sure why you think I haven't read the entire thread, or what effect you think it would have on my belief that people could be happy living within a "patriarchal construct." Perhaps you might clear things up by defining what you mean by "patriarchal constructs."


Ok. If we must, we must. Although I get the impression I've annoyed you, that was never my intention.

I was talking about patriarchal constructs in their most negative (although, seperately, I see nothing positive in patriarchy) form, as an example of the kinds of societies that the OP was referring to. The reason I referred you to the thread as a whole is that it became a discussion over definitions first of how one can have the ability to define something as wrong and then - and this is the important bit - change it to one's own way of thinking. As such, words such as free and happy are in the eye of the beholder and are too easy for us to say. Freedom leading to happiness may be, for us, pretty oblique; but for other cultures there are different ways of defining freedom for a start. The second part of the discussion was pertaining to definitions of subjective and objective morality and the very use of the word morality. That's why I didn't fully respond as my own choice of language re 'patriarchal constructs' has little to no bearing on the matter that was at hand. I do feel we may have gone round and round in circles slightly on this one...correct me if I'm mistaken.

Absolutely. The difference between this and what we were just discussing is huge though. I think we may have been at cross purposes. I believe that we should restore the points you raise above in the Sudan: it is a war zone. However, what I was referring to before was imbedded cultural differences between Eastern and Western countries that, perhaps, we don't have the right to change. For example, in Pakistan (a military dictatorship I know but still) or in Afghanistan.

We may have to simply accept a clash of cultures in this situation. I simply can not fathom how the West can tolerate regimes that would violate human rights so flagrantly as is occuring in the Sudan at the moment. America in my opinion should withdraw from Iraq and go into Sudan. We could do much more good there then will ever be able to be accomplished in Iraq. I really do think that we do have the right, as the people in those countries need to be shown that there is another way then by the oppressive means that they are used to. Some may find this concept to be insulting to their culture but I really don't care. If we can improve their lives then we should attempt to do so. Now as I've said it doesn't have to be through military action, giving aid to these people and sending messages about the benefits of genuine equality and democracy will do wonders. Isn't it something that those of us with these rights should inform those lacking of? That there are better ways? I'm sure the women would appreciate it at least being that they are often the targets in such societies.

[QUOTE=Utracia;11823595]We may have to simply accept a clash of cultures in this situation. I simply can not fathom how the West can tolerate regimes that would violate human rights so flagrantly as is occuring in the Sudan at the moment. America in my opinion should withdraw from Iraq and go into Sudan. QUOTE]

I totally agree. If you read back my post, what I was saying was there is a difference between interfering in ethnic cleansing and war and in a culture that has existed for thousands of years.

I am a pacifist and I detest loss of life through preventable and occassionally man-made structures such as war, famine or (some) diseases. As such I agree with you whole-heartedly in that the situation in Darfur is appalling and that there should be more of an international outcry and presence to end the violence than there is now. That does not mean taking over their country and it does not apply to countries where I feel there are cultural practices taking place that I find despicable but which are cultural - such as arranged marriage or FGM - and which I do not know if we have the RIGHT to stop them...I'm going to bed now, I'll check for replies tomorrow....

I totally agree. If you read back my post, what I was saying was there is a difference between interfering in ethnic cleansing and war and in a culture that has existed for thousands of years.

I am a pacifist and I detest loss of life through preventable and occassionally man-made structures such as war, famine or (some) diseases. As such I agree with you whole-heartedly in that the situation in Darfur is appalling and that there should be more of an international outcry and presence to end the violence than there is now. That does not mean taking over their country and it does not apply to countries where I feel there are cultural practices taking place that I find despicable but which are cultural - such as arranged marriage or FGM - and which I do not know if we have the RIGHT to stop them...I'm going to bed now, I'll check for replies tomorrow....

Well with practices such as arranged marriage, as long as both parties are in agreement then that is fine. I do think that culture in most ways needs to be remembered and that we can not simply invade and enforce our own systems. Trying to bring democracy to Iraq when the people there have no experience with it was a foolish idea and only could implode on us. However I am not going to ever believe that torture and rape and the like has a place in culture. It is a contradiction to call it that anyway. In the case of the Sudan we can move in to stop the slaughter and try to end the famine there but it doesn't mean to do a "regime change" unless it is absolutely neccessary. Peacekeeping would be enough and then we spread our message of how life is like in Western nations and how they can benefit from our stability and equality.

Although I get the impression I've annoyed you, that was never my intention.

Not necessarily. Please excuse any sense or implication of emotion in my words. Most of the time they simply are what they are. When I get emotional about something, there won't be any question of it or of precisely what the emotion is.

I was talking about patriarchal constructs in their most negative (although, seperately, I see nothing positive in patriarchy) form, as an example of the kinds of societies that the OP was referring to.

Understood. Though I submit that you might have used any specific hierarchical construct (e.g. matriarchies, oligarchies) operating at the negative end of it's spectrum in your example.

The reason I referred you to the thread as a whole is that it became a discussion over definitions first of how one can have the ability to define something as wrong and then - and this is the important bit - change it to one's own way of thinking.

Agreed. As mentioned, there are those who would define human (or specifically human, e.g. Jewish) existence as wrong and use that to condone violence, genocide and general annihilation.

As such, words such as free and happy are in the eye of the beholder...

I think I have to agree with you again. Though the happy has already been dealt with, at first glance it didn't seem that free could be subjective in the least. However, it is obvious that at some point, somewhere, someone's freedom has to be subjigated, even if it is the freedom of the assholes who think it's OK to hurt people for no good reason, while if they are free by their own definition then it is the freedom of thier victims being compromised.

The second part of the discussion was pertaining to definitions of subjective and objective morality and the very use of the word morality.

True, and in case it wasn't clear, I've weighed in on the side of morality in an absolute sense being subjective, but that that there will be an absolute morality germaine to a desired end, even if it's as simple as do unto others so you have a right to complain when they don't do unto you. In that respect, it would seem that morality is a tool used to effect an end, which is a way I'd never thought of morality before, which is one of the reasons I find this game so endearing.

I do feel we may have gone round and round in circles slightly on this one.

Again, agreed. I kind of took us off topic. Mea culpa.

Alright, then, I've tried every trick I know. If you still don't care, then there's nothing I can do.

I guess you can go back to watching MTV while kids in Darfur are starving and getting hacked to pieces, then.

I dont watch MTV, it represents everything that is wrong with tv. But dont worry I wont be losing sleep over the kids getting chopped up. I consider them lucky, they dont have to go through 40-50 years of living in a shit hole like the Sudan.

So let me get this straight:

You believe that people of one culture may have a right to abuse women and children, sell people into slavery, and so on, but you don't think that people of another culture have a right to do anything about it?
Pretty much, yeah.

At what point does your subjective morality objectively dictate that cultures should never intervene in each other's affairs?

you kind of answered your own question. The fact that I do believe morality is subjective is the very reason we are not allowed to impose our morality on others, and vice versa.

No, it isn't. It's just what most societies have designated as "good." So what?

Then use a different word rather than trying to redefine a word that represents a specific concept in our language.

Heh I just love the title of the OP. Cultural Realtivism Is Wrong. Hah what from your cultural relative POV?

Morality IS relative, there is no right or wrong about that, it just is.
So to say that Cultural Morality is wrong, makes no sense. We can of course disagree with the percived morality of other cultures(indeed we probably will) but of course this is only because of the differances between our cultures morality.

hehh sheesh, it's like a roundabout huh!

Heh I just love the title of the OP. Cultural Realtivism Is Wrong. Hah what from your cultural relative POV?

Morality IS relative, there is no right or wrong about that, it just is.
So to say that Cultural Morality is wrong, makes no sense. We can of course disagree with the percived morality of other cultures(indeed we probably will) but of course this is only because of the differances between our cultures morality.

hehh sheesh, it's like a roundabout huh!

Your error here is that you have provided no justification for why moral relativism. You simply state moral relativism IS, therefore morality is relative. That puts you on this spiral of circular logic. There is some great discussion on this board, I would recomend you check it out for a more complete understanding before you post a similar message.

GCz

Then use a different word rather than trying to redefine a word that represents a specific concept in our language.

Only the "specific concept" you refer to is not so much what we consider to be good as it is goodness itself - superiority, excellence, etc.

Only if you presuppose your own moral standard.

There are plenty of people who think the moral distinction between harmful crimes and victimless crimes is untenable.
Ultimately, then, in trying to convince one that rape is a greater crime than dressing promiscuously, you'd have to prove why your moral standard is superior (however you may interpret that), and I suppose you'd do this from a (humanist-) utilitarian standpoint.

Ultimately, then, in trying to convince one that rape is a greater crime than dressing promiscuously, you'd have to prove why your moral standard is superior (however you may interpret that), and I suppose you'd do this from a (humanist-) utilitarian standpoint.

You have to convince the person that your moral standard is superior.

You do not have to prove it.

You have to convince the person that your moral standard is superior.

You do not have to prove it.
A matter of semantics - yes, that is what I meant.

A matter of semantics

No, it isn't.

It is impossible to prove. It is possible to convince.

No, it isn't.

It is impossible to prove. It is possible to convince.
Yes, and what I meant to say is that I should've used convince in the place of prove. (Funny thing is, in its original and more archaic forms, convince did mean just that - to prove wrong or guilty. :))

Although I have participated in them in the past, recently these debates over "subjective" or "objective" morality remind me of Dr. Seuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book).

**reclines in chair, grabs a bucket of popcorn, and watches religious types continue to fight over nothing really important**

Although I have participated in them in the past, recently these debates over "subjective" or "objective" morality remind me of Dr. Seuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book).

**reclines in chair, grabs a bucket of popcorn, and watches religious types continue to fight over nothing really important**

Admittedly, it is rather pointless.

I do prefer arguing about the merits of various moral theories than about meta-ethics, but all too often, arguments about the former become arguments about the latter.

Well, usually rape is not condoned in any culture in the world. Unfortunately, it some cultures, it is quite difficult to "prove" that a rape occurred(For instance, needing males witnesses to the actual rape itself), but is almost never seen as right or just(as a norm).

snipSpousal rape is not a crime in many cultures.

Spousal rape is not a crime in many cultures.
It was barely recognised as one in the UK until 1990 in the famous R v R case, which overturned Hale's proposition.

Your error here is that you have provided no justification for why moral relativism. You simply state moral relativism IS, therefore morality is relative. That puts you on this spiral of circular logic. There is some great discussion on this board, I would recomend you check it out for a more complete understanding before you post a similar message.

GCz


Hey up,

Each and everytime I post a statement without coresponding evidance, take it that the statement is either self evidante, or it is my subjective POV. ;)

Cheers.

Well, usually rape is not condoned in any culture in the world. Unfortunately, it some cultures, it is quite difficult to "prove" that a rape occurred(For instance, needing males witnesses to the actual rape itself), but is almost never seen as right or just(as a norm).

There is atleast one area in the world where community elders decree that a woman be raped (gang raped if that is applicable) in retaliation for a crime that the woman's family may have done.

Google for Muktharan Mai.

Spousal rape is not a crime in many cultures.
Hell, it has only very recently been criminalized in the US. For most of our history, saying "I do" automatically meant that your husband got to fuck you whenever he damn well pleased, regardless of your feelings on the subject.