NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?

I don't personally believe it to be true. For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

So do you agree with the idea? Why?

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?

I don't personally believe it to be true. For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

So do you agree with the idea? Why?

A slippery slope. By agreeing with the idea you also validate the kind of cultures you just mentioned, by disagreeing you're an intollerant bigot. With that being said I don't believe in cultural relativism.

For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

Not "correct." "Correct" assumes objectivity. Relative to their cultural morality, slavery was acceptable. Relative to ours, it is clearly not - and there is no objective standard by which to evaluate who is right. This does not necessarily mean that we cannot morally impose our point of view upon them.

No, I'm not a cultural relativist, but I think it generally gets an unfair hearing.

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?No I don't. I think it's a fucked up spin, invented in an attempt to legitimate gross disregard of the rights of others.

For example, if I said driving off/killing a million people in a foreign country, in an attempt to force them into accepting a sham democracy is wrong, some asshat'd immediately accuse me of condoning oppression & murder of women & minorities, in the name of 'cultural relativism'.

It's bullshit, and like most other bullshit, it basically consists of parading around strawmen & try to make them sound legitimate.

Not "correct." "Correct" assumes objectivity. Relative to their cultural morality, slavery was acceptable. Relative to ours, it is clearly not - and there is no objective standard by which to evaluate who is right. This does not necessarily mean that we cannot morally impose our point of view upon them.

No, I'm not a cultural relativist, but I think it generally gets an unfair hearing.

But surely there are somethings that are universally acceptable? Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don't quite understand how anyone can justify it.

And also, the whole idea of "just because they believe it is true, then its true to them", isn't a bunch of balognia? Let's use the example of our buddy George Dubya...He believed that clearly there were WMDs to be dealt with in Iraq, and despite there being proof that there weren't any wmds, does it still mean Georgie is right, but in his own opinion? I guess if it works for a culture, then it could work for an individual as well, which would ultimatly allow for the over throwing of government or at least the legal system.

But Im not attacking you or your beliefs, as you said you don't follow it. I just felt like venting a bit, after reading some silly sites about it :)

Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don't quite understand how anyone can justify it.

"That which benefits me is morally acceptable. This innocent person was an obstacle to achieving my ends. Thus, it was morally acceptable to kill her."

You may not agree with the argument... but by what objective standard do you deny the first premise?

And also, the whole idea of "just because they believe it is true, then its true to them", isn't a bunch of balognia? Let's use the example of our buddy George Dubya...He believed that clearly there were WMDs to be dealt with in Iraq, and despite there being proof that there weren't any wmds, does it still mean Georgie is right, but in his own opinion? I guess if it works for a culture, then it could work for an individual as well, which would ultimatly allow for the over throwing of government or at least the legal system.

No, WMDs in Iraq is a matter of objective fact. Either they're there or they're not. (Actually, this is disputable... but that's another argument.) The cultural relativists argue that morality does not have the character of such objective fact - that moral "truths" are merely judgments relative to cultures. To say "x is wrong" is merely to say that "the moral standards of the culture to which I subscribe judges x to be wrong" - not that "x is wrong" in the objective sense that "the sky is blue."

This does not mean that there is no objective truth, merely that moral statements are not in that sphere.

When I first studied Anthropology, the professor was a big proponent of "cultural relativity." Of course, being a college freshman and impressionable, I slavishly agreed. As I got older, I realized that some cultures had problems - cultures that practiced "honor" killing, female circumcision, circumcision of 12-year old boys in public and without anesthetic. Cultures that supported pulling men off the street to worship gods they didn't believe in and refused medical treatment and education to more than half the population because they were the wrong sex. Based on these examples, and many more, I decided that the notion of "cultural relativity" was bunk.

But surely there are somethings that are universally acceptable? Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don't quite understand how anyone can justify it.

Throughout western history, most recently in the 'Wild West' i think, dueling was quite commonplace and if I understand correctly was held to be acceptable by law enforcement and by the public at large. 'Innocent' has different meanings to different people, however killing someone because they insulted you would in todays world be normally considered killing an innocent person for no reason.

Cultural relativism is fair to a point.

For instance, I would contend that slavery is wrong in all circumstances (and most people and societies these days indeed hold that view), but arguing that one culture is superior to another because its people sit at tables to eat rather than on the floor is foolish in almost anyone's book. (To pick but one example out of the thousands of possiblities)

Thing is, it's one thing accepting cultural relativism and saying "oh it's okay, it's their culture, so let them get on with it", another thing saying "oh it's their culture, I understand why they do it, but I don't agree", and another thing to say "oh it's their culture, it's wrong and we must change that".
I prefer the middle option. To be understanding does not necessarily you agree - but then again you don't do a kneejerk 'ohmigod that's so wrong" reaction. I mean, when I study the wars of religion after the Reformation, I feel sad that people butchered each other in the name of intertwined religion and politics, but I can see why it happened in the first place, and how the culture of the time encouraged it.
At least that's how I feel.

I prefer the middle option. To be understanding does not necessarily you agree–but then again you don’t do a kneejerk ‘ohmigod that’s so wrong" reaction. I mean, when I study the wars of religion after the Reformation, I feel sad that people butchered each other in the name of intertwined religion and politics, but I can see why it happened in the first place, and how the culture of the time encouraged it.
At least that’s how I feel.
There’s a massive difference between tolerance of difference and the concept that morality is defined by culture.

But surely there are somethings that are universally acceptable? Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don't quite understand how anyone can justify it.

Tell that to the Ilongot tribespeople of the Philippines. As part of their grieving ritual, they used to take the head of whoever happened to be the next poor sap to walk into their ambush. They didn't see the villagers of the lowlands (the ones they ambushed) as members of their group, so they didn't consider taking their heads as murder. They were more concerned with their grieving process--throwing away the head was their way of throwing away their grief.

We look at the concept and think it barbarous, but it wasn't to them, my point being that the concept of murder as a wrong is not necessarily a universal one.

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?

I don't personally believe it to be true. For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

So do you agree with the idea? Why?

Let's just say that I believe in cultural evolution. :)

Until someone provides me with a clear reason why there really is an morality or law beyond "Do what thou will", I think I'll stay a firm supporter of cultural relativism.

But surely there are somethings that are universally acceptable? Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don’t quite understand how anyone can justify it.
There’s certainly many human universals. Donald E. Brown counts over 200. See here (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm).

To quote myself from a previous cultural relativism debate:

No matter which culture on Earth one decides to view, we can quickly observe within that culture moral values that transcend the society’s boundaries; a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence (see Brown’s human universals).

Moral relativists often highlight the variations of the above categories between cultures, claiming these variations back up their relativity. However, they fail to recognise that these variations are all differences of belief (whether factual or supernatural) about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances that necessarily affect those beliefs, all centring round a core set of universal, objective moral values.

It is these cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with what Steven Pinker calls "irrelevant passions and prejudices” such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., that cloud our core moral values, which reconcile the apparent differences between cultures’ moralities and the objective morality of humankind.

Until someone provides me with a clear reason why there really is an morality or law beyond "Do what thou will", I think I'll stay a firm supporter of cultural relativism.
Funny how those who follow "do what thou will" always tend to do exactly what Crowley did.

There’s certainly many human universals. Donald E. Brown counts over 200. See here (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm).

To quote myself from a previous cultural relativism debate:

No matter which culture on Earth one decides to view, we can quickly observe within that culture moral values that transcend the society’s boundaries; a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence (see Brown’s human universals).

Moral relativists often highlight the variations of the above categories between cultures, claiming these variations back up their relativity. However, they fail to recognise that these variations are all differences of belief (whether factual or supernatural) about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances that necessarily affect those beliefs, all centring round a core set of universal, objective moral values.

It is these cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with what Steven Pinker calls "irrelevant passions and prejudices” such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., that cloud our core moral values, which reconcile the apparent differences between cultures’ moralities and the objective morality of humankind.
It's not universal. The "human universals" are things that we all have in common, most because of our biology and not because of our psychology. And I don't see a universal condemnation of violence among cultures, I see a universal condemnation of violence among your own group. Infanticide, for instance, has been present in many cultures.

And if what you say is true, than there would be no murder because all humans would know it is wrong and it would make them feel bad.

Are you saying that if we discover other intelligent life, they will defenitely reflect our morality?


Funny how those who follow "do what thou will" always tend to do exactly what Crowley did.
Yep. They're a fucked up bunch.

It’s not universal. The “human universals” are things that we all have in common, most because of our biology and not because of our psychology.
‘Things that we all have in common’ are universal to humans. They are one and the same.

Do you honestly believe people from different cultures have their brains wired in different ways? That Americans have a distinct psychology unique to Americans alone? If I live in the UK, then move to the US, does my psychology therefore change?

And I don’t see a universal condemnation of violence among cultures, I see a universal condemnation of violence among your own group. Infanticide, for instance, has been present in many cultures.
Ahh, infanticide. Again, do you honestly believe the Eskimo tribes (who, for a matter of fact, are far more likely to put children up for adoption than kill them) have less of an appreciation for the sanctity of life? That Eskimo mothers care for their children less than our mothers do? I find that incredibly hard to believe, if not impossible.

Eskimo mothers care about their children just as much as ‘Western’ mothers do. Unfortunately, the climate they live in is often too harsh, resources too scarce, to support a large family. Thus, environment applies pressure on our shared morality.

And if what you say is true, than there would be no murder because all humans would know it is wrong and it would make them feel bad.
Having a shared morality doesn’t mean the end of murder, rape, etc., just as having a law prohibiting an act doesn't mean the total end of that act. We all do things that make us feel bad, things we know are wrong.

Are you saying that if we discover other intelligent life, they will defenitely reflect our morality?
Of course not, they wouldn’t be human, so they wouldn’t have our shared, evolved morality.

‘Things that we all have in common’ are universal to humans. They are one and the same.

Do you honestly believe people from different cultures have their brains wired in different ways? That Americans have a distinct psychology unique to Americans alone? If I live in the UK, then move to the US, does my psychology therefore change?
1.) Saying something is universal implies that it's, well, universal. I.E. it applies to all things in the universe. This doesn't.
2.) Doesn't everyone have their brain wired differently? Isn't that what gives credence to the nature side of nuture v. nature?


Ahh, infanticide. Again, do you honestly believe the Eskimo tribes (who, for a matter of fact, are far more likely to put children up for adoption than kill them) have less of an appreciation for the sanctity of life? That Eskimo mothers care for their children less than our mothers do? I find that incredibly hard to believe, if not impossible.
Maybe because you aren't an eskimo?
Obviously, I'm not definitively asserting it's biology.
Eskimo mothers care about their children just as much as ‘Western’ mothers do. Unfortunately, the climate they live in is often too harsh, resources too scarce, to support a large family. Thus, environment applies pressure on our shared morality.[/quote]
Aren't there some mothers who would rather die than kill their baby?
Maybe the difference was that some eskimos.



Having a shared morality doesn’t mean the end of murder, rape, etc., just as having a law prohibiting an act doesn't mean the total end of that act. We all do things that make us feel bad, things we know are wrong.
Nazis slaughtered over six million Jews, and proclaimed it righteous. And felt it was righteous. Spartans left babies in the woods and felt proud. This contradicts universal morality.


Of course not, they wouldn’t be human, so they wouldn’t have our shared, evolved morality.[/QUOTE]
And that's why it's not truly universal.



It seems to me that you're saying we're all robots with experience determining everything instead of programming. Did you stop to consider there are naturally "evil" people (individuals,i mean). Maybe even naturally sad and happy ones? That people who are "wired" differently have no less claim to being right or wrong than the ones that fit our values?

Cultures are more than superficially different.

But surely there are somethings that are universally acceptable? Such as murder of an innocent person being unacceptable, right? I don't quite understand how anyone can justify it.

It was totally fine for the ancient Aztecs, and one could also argue that war is organized mass-murder, but I won't get into that.

There's plenty of stuff that our culture does that is revolting to other cultures. Putting your elders in a place so you don't have to care for them is taboo in many cultures, some people eat grubs and other insects, yet would vomit at the thought of eating cheese.

1.) Saying something is universal implies that it’s, well, universal. I.E. it applies to all things in the universe. This doesn’t.
Human universal. As in, universal to all humans. The term ‘universal’ does not solely mean ‘universe-wide’; it can mean ‘generic to a grouping’.

Meh, Semantics

2.) Doesn’t everyone have their brain wired differently? Isn’t that what gives credence to the nature side of nuture v. nature?
the nature part of nurture vs. nature, is referring to the genetic make-up, and other details that define us. However, personality and other differences doesn’t stop our brains working, at a very basic level, in the same way. I contend that our morality, at the very basic level, is the same. We merely have prejudices, environmental factors, etc., that apply pressure on this basic shared morality. It is at this point that the customs of the culture we are brought up in effect our morality. But importantly they don’t define our morality, nor do they create it.

Maybe because you aren’t an eskimo?
Obviously, I’m not definitively asserting it’s biology.
So you are arguing that Eskimos have less affection for their children, less respect for life?

Aren’t there some mothers who would rather die than kill their baby?
And?

Eskimo mothers do everything they can to save the child they don’t have enough resources for. 99% of the time, the child is given to an Eskimo couple who don’t have children.

Nazis slaughtered over six million Jews, and proclaimed it righteous. And felt it was righteous. Spartans left babies in the woods and felt proud. This contradicts universal morality.
In no way does it. The Nazis believed they were protecting life and helping humanity by removing the ‘Jewish problem’. The Spartans believed much the same by weeding out the weak babies from the strong. Anti-abortion advocates believe they are protecting the sanctity of life. So do pro-abortion advocates, they just have a different conception of what is ‘life’, and what needs protecting.

Different approaches to the same problem.

Indeed, this highlights the ridiculous assumption of cultural relativism, the idea that culture defines morality. If this was true, why did some Germans rebel against the Nazis? Why did the Helots rise up against the Spartans? Both dominant groups set the morality of the culture; if culture is the sole definer of morality, how did these groups break away from that morality? How can two people from within one culture hold opposing ethical views?

And that’s why it’s not truly universal.
See above.

It seems to me that you’re saying we’re all robots with experience determining everything instead of programming. Did you stop to consider there are naturally “evil” people (individuals,i mean). Maybe even naturally sad and happy ones? That people who are “wired” differently have no less claim to being right or wrong than the ones that fit our values?

Cultures are more than superficially different.
Naturally evil people. :D Right. Pull the other one.

There’s plenty of stuff that our culture does that is revolting to other cultures. Putting your elders in a place so you don’t have to care for them is taboo in many cultures, some people eat grubs and other insects, yet would vomit at the thought of eating cheese.
But that doesn’t for one sec suggest we have a culturally relative morality.

All it shows is that we have different conceptions of what ‘looking after our elders’ or ‘good food’ entails. Some of us believe that putting our grannies into homes is ‘looking after our elders’, some think caring for granny personally is ‘looking after our elders’. Some believe ‘good food’ is cheese, some believe that grubs are ‘good food’. But we all want to look after our elders, and all want to eat good food.

Indeed, these beliefs change between individuals within the same culture; culture certainly isn’t the decider of morality. It does, however, influence how we should follow our inner morals. But again, culture isn’t the be-all and end-all of morality.

The Callations ate their dead, the Greeks burned them. But both cultures believed something must be done with the dead.

Zilam have you ever read "Mere Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926)"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity

you totally should.

Anyway, no, I am not much for cultural relativism.

But that doesn’t for one sec suggest we have a culturally relative morality.

All it shows is that we have different conceptions of what ‘looking after our elders’ or ‘good food’ entails. Some of us believe that putting our grannies into homes is ‘looking after our elders’, some think caring for granny personally is ‘looking after our elders’. Some believe ‘good food’ is cheese, some believe that grubs are ‘good food’. But we all want to look after our elders, and all want to eat good food.

Indeed, these beliefs change between individuals within the same culture; culture certainly isn’t the decider of morality. It does, however, influence how we should follow our inner morals. But again, culture isn’t the be-all and end-all of morality.

The Callations ate their dead, the Greeks burned them. But both cultures believed something must be done with the dead.

I agree, I was just pointing out that cultural relativism isn't just forcing our culture to tolerate/accept the "backward" parts of other cultures, as it is usually thought of. The door swings both ways.

I agree, I was just pointing out that cultural relativism isn’t just forcing our culture to tolerate/accept the “backward” parts of other cultures, as it is usually thought of. The door swings both ways.
Yeah, that’s the initially attractive part of cultural relativism, but a part that has its obvious failings–the inability to criticise other cultures, for one.

For me, cultural relativism entails all kinds of wrong. It’s unfortunate that it has become so fashionable among the social sciences, and among the young in general.

There’s certainly many human universals. Donald E. Brown counts over 200. See here (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm).

It doesn't matter how many they are, because "human universals" and "objective moral truth" are two different categories.

What happens if we encounter an extraterrestrial culture with a fundamentally different way of viewing the world? What standard do we cite then?

Human universal. As in, universal to all humans. The term ‘universal’ does not solely mean ‘universe-wide’; it can mean ‘generic to a grouping’.

Meh, Semantics

[quote]
the nature part of nurture vs. nature, is referring to the genetic make-up, and other details that define us. However, personality and other differences doesn’t stop our brains working, at a very basic level, in the same way. I contend that our morality, at the very basic level, is the same. We merely have prejudices, environmental factors, etc., that apply pressure on this basic shared morality. It is at this point that the customs of the culture we are brought up in effect our morality. But importantly they don’t define our morality, nor do they create it.
Oh, then I don't see the problem. What your saying is that irregardless of how good and evil are manifested, we still conceptualize them. I can agree with that. I thought you were saying that some cultures are inherintly more "worthy" or some such bullshit.

So you are arguing that Eskimos have less affection for their children, less respect for life?


And?

Eskimo mothers do everything they can to save the child they don’t have enough resources for. 99% of the time, the child is given to an Eskimo couple who don’t have children. Some eskimos have more, some less.


In no way does it. The Nazis believed they were protecting life and helping humanity by removing the ‘Jewish problem’. The Spartans believed much the same by weeding out the weak babies from the strong. Anti-abortion advocates believe they are protecting the sanctity of life. So do pro-abortion advocates, they just have a different conception of what is ‘life’, and what needs protecting. Killing is wrong. Gassing jews is killing. That means gassing jews is wrong, assuming all people think killing is wrong. However, they don't. They only think killing certain people is wrong, while other groups are fare game.

Different approaches to the same problem.

Indeed, this highlights the ridiculous assumption of cultural relativism, the idea that culture defines morality. If this was true, why did some Germans rebel against the Nazis? Why did the Helots rise up against the Spartans? Both dominant groups set the morality of the culture; if culture is the sole definer of morality, how did these groups break away from that morality? How can two people from within one culture hold opposing ethical views?

See above.


Naturally evil people. :D Right. Pull the other one.
We have naturally sad people and, according to you, naturally good people. Why not evil people?


Here's my position: There may be an objective truth. But we are so heavily enamored in our own subjective truth that it's virtually impossible to find. Everyone's version of reality is equally valid, or false if you prefer. Cultural Relativism is just mass acceptance of subjective reality.

So I guess you're right. I don't believe totally in cultural relativism, but only personal relativism.

It doesn’t matter how many they are, because “human universals” and “objective moral truth” are two different categories.

What happens if we encounter an extraterrestrial culture with a fundamentally different way of viewing the world? What standard do we cite then?
I’m not contending there is a standard outside of humanity. I believe our shared morality is a system evolved over time, produced by mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions. The idea of an ultimate objective morality, outside of an evolved set of ethical functions, seems slightly bizarre to me.

An entirely different life form would obviously have an entirely different take on morality, if it would have one at all.

I suppose then, I would concede a theoretical species-wide relativity of morality. However, on top of that, if this alien species was able to fully communicate and interact with humanity, it would have to share some common ground; same conception of time and space, similar physical level (i.e. not operating at a sub-atomic level), a shared ability to communicate, similar terms of reference, a similar complex social structure, etc.

Thus, it would be conceivable that such a species would have a compatible morality to our own.

Cheers for the interesting thought experiment, I’ve never thought about this at a level beyond humanity.

I’m not contending there is a standard outside of humanity.

Then why do you reject relativism?

All you have shown is that cultural moralities are very similar among humans... not that there is an objective basis for declaring one cultural morality truer than another.

I suppose then, I would concede a theoretical species-wide relativity of morality.

No, you'd have to concede more than that.

The crucial difference is not that they are a different species in and of itself; after all, it is easy to conceive of an extraterrestrial species with a morality equivalent to our own. It is that their cultural morality is different from our own.

Similarly, if due to whatever bizarre circumstances you want to imagine, a human culture rejected many of the "human universals" you cited earlier, it is difficult to see how you could objectively demonstrate a lack of validity to their position.

However, on top of that, if this alien species was able to fully communicate and interact with humanity, it would have to share some common ground; same conception of time and space, similar physical level (i.e. not operating at a sub-atomic level), a shared ability to communicate, similar terms of reference, a similar complex social structure, etc.

Why does it matter whether they are "able to fully communicate and interact with humanity"? All that matters is that they are moral agents - that they are rational and have free will. If you want to find an objective basis for morality, you must found it in those two traits and nothing else.

Oh, then I don’t see the problem. What your saying is that irregardless of how good and evil are manifested, we still conceptualize them. I can agree with that. I thought you were saying that some cultures are inherintly more “worthy” or some such bullshit.
No, no. I’m not saying anything of the sort. Sorry for the confusion.

Killing is wrong. Gassing jews is killing. That means gassing jews is wrong, assuming all people think killing is wrong. However, they don’t. They only think killing certain people is wrong, while other groups are fare game.
I’m not claiming that our shared morality has such refined rules as ‘all killing is wrong’. I’d argue that the rule ‘killing/violence is not always acceptable’ is universal to humanity, but we all have different conceptions of what constitutes a situation in which killing/violence is acceptable. Thus some justify killing on more occasions than others.

Similarly, to re-use an example from above, we all share an ethic that the dead must be disposed of. However, we all have different conceptions, affected by our environment, upbringing, political climate, peer pressure, life experiences, etc., of what is deemed an acceptable form of disposal of the dead. Thus some bury their dead, some cremate their dead and some eat their dead.

We have naturally sad people and, according to you, naturally good people. Why not evil people?
Do we have naturally sad people? Could you give me an example? Note that I’m saying that all humans have a morality, not that all humans are moral. I’d reject the idea of a ‘naturally’ good or evil person.

Here’s my position: There may be an objective truth. But we are so heavily enamored in our own subjective truth that it’s virtually impossible to find. Everyone’s version of reality is equally valid, or false if you prefer. Cultural Relativism is just mass acceptance of subjective reality.

So I guess you’re right. I don’t believe totally in cultural relativism, but only personal relativism.
That’s getting away from culturally relative morality, and onto the question of reality vs. our world-view. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

However, I’d pose the thought: how can we objectively accept something that is subjective?

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?

I don't personally believe it to be true. For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

So do you agree with the idea? Why?Well I don't know. Did the slaves believe that slavery was acceptable and that they were nothing more than animals?
(NO)

But if they had...would that change things?

No, I'm not a cultural relativist, but I think it generally gets an unfair hearing.
Since you aren't one, could you offer reasons why not?

Did the slaves believe that slavery was acceptable and that they were nothing more than animals?

Clearly, relative to their culture, slavery was wrong. Why would a cultural relativist deny this? He or she would simply insist that relative to the culture of the white slave-owners, it wasn't.

But if they had...would that change things?

Since slavery definitionally makes the will of the slaves irrelevant, no.

Since you aren't one, could you offer reasons why not?

Because it can't deal with differences within the same culture.

What if I decide that my culture is wrong, and murder is perfectly acceptable? What if I construct an elaborate justification for this point of view, and am utterly committed to it? Am I objectively wrong because I don't agree with my culture? Do I have my own culture?

It is not cultural moralities between which we can find no objective standard - it is individual moralities. Morality is subjective.

Because it can't deal with differences within the same culture.

What if I decide that my culture is wrong, and murder is perfectly acceptable? What if I construct an elaborate justification for this point of view, and am utterly committed to it? Am I objectively wrong because I don't agree with my culture? Do I have my own culture?

It is not cultural moralities between which we can find no objective standard - it is individual moralities. Morality is subjective.
All right, this is the objection I have against it too. It tends to treat cultures as monolithic entities without any variance within them. If one were to accept this view, why ever criticise anything?

Clearly, relative to their culture, slavery was wrong. Why would a cultural relativist deny this? He or she would simply insist that relative to the culture of the white slave-owners, it wasn't. I think my point was...(hazy, undeveloped and probably stupid, bear with me) that if two cultures, coming together, believed in slavery, one as owner, one as ownee...could that be objectively alright? Or even...slavery within a single culture...



Since slavery definitionally makes the will of the slaves irrelevant, no.Well, the slavery in question sure...but imagine a slavery that was consensual. Entered into, fully informed, to be forever binding once entered into. Consensual non-consent. (let's just ignore the other connotation that has). The option being...giving up your freedom entirely, the payoff being not having to provide for yourself any more.

/rambling

I think my point was...(bear with me) that if two cultures, coming together, believed in slavery, one as owner, one as ownee...could that be objectively alright? Or even...slavery within a single culture...

We would have to ask why the "ownee" culture was agreeing to such an arrangement.

Is this a belief that they have been indoctrinated into? I can't see why else such a thing would happen... unless perhaps for some reason there is a strong disincentive attached to remaining free, in which case the arrangement is coercive and still not acceptable.

Well, the slavery in question sure...but imagine a slavery that was consensual. Entered into, fully informed, to be forever binding once entered into. Consensual non-consent. (let's just ignore the other connotation that has). The option being...giving up your freedom entirely, the payoff being not having to provide for yourself any more.

Still unacceptable.

What happens if I change my mind a week later? Suddenly the relationship is no longer consensual... I am being enslaved against my will, and that is wrong.

*snip*

Yeah, just grasping at straws. To a certain extent I get cultural relativism...but not absolute cultural relativism. Then again, perhaps I don't understand the definitions enough. I'm willing to give subjective cultural expectations a hell of a lot of leeway...but not total priority.

What pray tell is the alternative to cultural relativism?

Cultural absolutism? "Ours is the best, period! It is logically true that we are superior, ha ha!" That's what it seems like to me. Ethnocentricism mixed with a mistaken belief in objective morals. I.E believing that things are absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. Must be cuz God says so, I guess.

What pray tell is the alternative to cultural relativism?

Cultural absolutism? "Ours is the best, period! It is logically true that we are superior, ha ha!" That's what it seems like to me. Ethnocentricism mixed with a mistaken belief in objective morals. I.E believing that things are absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. Must be cuz God says so, I guess.

No not necessarily that. Like I said, I believe that nearly all cultures have some universal beliefs. There is no best, but then again, just because you believe something to be right, doesn't make it so.

What pray tell is the alternative to cultural relativism?

Cultural absolutism? "Ours is the best, period! It is logically true that we are superior, ha ha!" That's what it seems like to me. Ethnocentricism mixed with a mistaken belief in objective morals. I.E believing that things are absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. Must be cuz God says so, I guess.
Look, if cultural relativism simply says "don't impose your beliefs on others" I can agree with it. However, that doesn't mean I oughtn't criticise their beliefs, anymore than I do the beliefs of others within the same society I am in (otherwise it'd simply be moral parochialism of a sort). If, for instance, I disapprove of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia I am not going to call for a war of intervention, but rather criticise what I think is wrong and help those in the culture who are against it.

The problem with the opposite belief is this: what if I convince myself that those in the other culture only accept it because they've been indoctrinated to do so (somewhat similar to Christian missionaries in Africa in the past)... should I go and forcefully enlighten them? I'd say no.

No not necessarily that. Like I said, I believe that nearly all cultures have some universal beliefs.

Doesn't translate to a rebuking of cultural relativism nor is it support for objectivism or absolutism.

There is no best, but then again, just because you believe something to be right, doesn't make it so.

"right" and "wrong" have no context outside of human cultures or persons. So I would say that just because you believe there is a "right" apart from your person or culture, doesn't make it so.

Look, if cultural relativism simply says "don't impose your beliefs on others" I can agree with it.

"there are or can be no value judgements that are true, that is, objectively justifiable, independent of specific cultures"

That's all it says.

However, that doesn't mean I oughtn't criticise their beliefs, anymore than I do the beliefs of others within the same society I am in (otherwise it'd simply be moral parochialism of a sort). If, for instance, I disapprove of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia I am not going to call for a war of intervention, but rather criticise what I think is wrong and help those in the culture who are against it.

Yeah. I dunno where anyone got the idea that cultural relativism is the same thing as censorship.

It does however mean that if you say something like, "Saudi Arabians are EVIL and a part of the axis of EVIL!" I'm going to take that in the context of whatever you define to be evil, not as some objective and absolute judgement which must be refuted or supported on that basis.

The problem with the opposite belief is this: what if I convince myself that those in the other culture only accept it because they've been indoctrinated to do so (somewhat similar to Christian missionaries in Africa in the past)... should I go and forcefully enlighten them? I'd say no.

I agree you shouldn't!

"There is no reason why the relativist should be paralyzed, as critics have often asserted. But a relativist will acknowledge that the criticism is based on his own ethnocentric standards and realizes also that the condemnation may be a form of cultural imperialism."

Generally, Western culture seems to be the superior culture at this point, with a few caveats. It's arguable that at one point Chinese culture was "better", but there were few cultures dedicated to knowledge and scientific enlightenment - values which have turned out to be fundamentally, absolutely useful, then.

Cultural relativism is an odd term, though; generally when used it is to do with morality. If you take away the whole police-state thing, the differences between Eastern and Western culture (China vs European nations, for example), the differences are more often than not to do with something other than morality - for instance, the attitude to accumalation of knowledge.

Going back to the scientific factor - this seems to be an important one that relativism cannot be applied to. More advanced cultures overwhelm and sometimes annihilate less advanced ones.

cultural relativism doesn't mean that every culture's monstrosities are 'forgivable' or whatever. it's the understanding that in the prevailing moral and social conditions of the time and place, things that would be abhorred in the here and now would have seemed normal and morally neutral. it doesn't excuse such things as slavery, it tries to understand and explain why it was acceptable at the time. cuz it'd be pretty stupid to suggest that everyone thought it wasn't acceptable at the time.

Cultural relativism is an excellent tool, quite evidently, for gaining an insight into the motivations of those from a different era, or region, and insofar as it is employed for this purpose, I contend it has a use. It's appropriation by some as a tool to justify the abhorrent is awful.

In any case, Soluis, do you have any idea? Upon what grounds do you substantiate the suggestion that the west is culturally superior to the world at large, other than the presuppositions that themselves underpin western morality and culture?

Do you follow it? Meaning, do you agree with the basic concept of it?

I don't personally believe it to be true. For example, if it was true, then at the time, the slave holders of the south would have been correct in their belief that slavery was acceptable, and africans were nothing more than animals that were meant to be worked.

So do you agree with the idea? Why?

You totally misunderstand relativism.

Look, if cultural relativism simply says "don't impose your beliefs on others" I can agree with it. However, that doesn't mean I oughtn't criticise their beliefs, anymore than I do the beliefs of others within the same society I am in (otherwise it'd simply be moral parochialism of a sort). If, for instance, I disapprove of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia I am not going to call for a war of intervention, but rather criticise what I think is wrong and help those in the culture who are against it.

The problem with the opposite belief is this: what if I convince myself that those in the other culture only accept it because they've been indoctrinated to do so (somewhat similar to Christian missionaries in Africa in the past)... should I go and forcefully enlighten them? I'd say no.

Theres nothing stopping you from criticizing peoples values in contrast to your values, which is what you would be doing. It's not as if relativism is an ethical way of thinking, but more a meta ethical analysis on the nature of ethics which i believe to be mostly correct. It is not as if it is commanding you to not oppose and dissaprove of other customs, in fact it is stating that this is an unavoidable effect of relativism, people will be criticizing other sets of values. In short, relativism is an IS not an OUGHT.

Theres nothing stopping you from criticizing peoples values in contrast to your values, which is what you would be doing. It's not as if relativism is an ethical way of thinking, but more a meta ethical analysis on the nature of ethics which i believe to be mostly correct. It is not as if it is commanding you to not oppose and dissaprove of other customs, in fact it is stating that this is an unavoidable effect of relativism, people will be criticizing other sets of values. In short, relativism is an IS not an OUGHT.
It becomes problematic when certain people use it to justify a position of complete moral neutrality, in that one can never pass judgement or criticise others for their actions. I'll assume most people who do this misunderstand it though.

There’s a massive difference between tolerance of difference and the concept that morality is defined by culture.


It may just be the few beers clouding my thought, but I'm not quite getting what you're saying here with regards to what I originally wrote. I think I have an understanding, but don't trust me on that.


I’m not claiming that our shared morality has such refined rules as ‘all killing is wrong’. I’d argue that the rule ‘killing/violence is not always acceptable’ is universal to humanity, but we all have different conceptions of what constitutes a situation in which killing/violence is acceptable. Thus some justify killing on more occasions than others.


And I would say that these 'different conceptions' are what makes our culture. That's why I accept the idea of cultural relativism - culture is but a manifest (or explanation maybe, that's probably better) of what the temporal, geographical, social, religious and political situation influences people to do. It is a human construct. And thus it will vary from place to place and over the years.
The human universals that you linked to are fair enough, but that does not negate the idea that interpretations or manifests of those are culture. Different responses to the same problem = cultural difference, and hence cultural relativism.

Having said all that, I think I'm getting at what you were originally saying. I wasn't really talking about moral relativism, or arguing that the wars of religion after the Reformation happened because they were seen as morally right, though many tried to make it so. A culture steeped in violence and death will naturally produce violent and deadly actions, yet people within and without can still see it as wrong.
Though I don't know if this is a retort or an agreement or even completely irrelevant with regards to what you are arguing.