Are all cultures worthy of equal respect?

[chimpkin]

He's obviously looking for as big a flamewar as possible, but the two specific quotes he built the OP around are both from myself.

Maybe. Several of us were whomping on him. I imagine he feels really put-upon at this point.
Awww

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Probably ... combined with the assumption that the culture that one belongs to oneself is automatically "superior" to all other cultures. I guess a cultural bigot will go looking for the bad in other cultures while being wilfully blind to the good, and applying the reverse process to his own culture.



"?

Wow James you understand red car . Great Bro James rock on

 

[WillNever]

Probably ... combined with the assumption that the culture that one belongs to oneself is automatically "superior" to all other cultures. I guess a cultural bigot will go looking for the bad in other cultures while being wilfully blind to the good, and applying the reverse process to his own culture.

I see that too sometimes. For instance, a lot of people on this board have exhibited resentment toward the culture of the people of Israel, criticizing their secularism, militarism, even going so far as to suggest that they aren't actually a culture at all. They acknowledge no good in them.

By contrast, sometimes I see people ignore the bad in other cultures while only celebrating the good. There seems to be a mentality where we can define a culture only by its good qualities and not its harmful ones. I believe that mentality is anti-intellectual.

The question you're really discussing here is the one of moral relativism. Is it ok to say "Well, being war-like is just part of their culture, so that's ok then?" If "they" have a different idea of morality than "us", are we in any position to judge "them"? Are we morally justified in doing so? If you're a moral relativist, you'll answer "No"/ If you're an absolutist, you'll say "yes".

Being war-like only hurts people, usually. Some practices are questionable given a different sense of morality but there are some that are bad across the board. Conquering others and burning their cities, ripping apart families, genocide, making children into slaves. These aspects of being "war-like" tend to be bad across the board, given almost any sense of morality as we know it, yet they are practiced by certain cultures all the same.

In order to transform problematic aspects of any given culture, one must comprehend the essential reasons those aspects exist.

Often, those reasons are already well understood but unalterable. For example, some cultures tend to harbor malice toward neighboring cultures and minority groups within their culture because of a history of isolationism and ethnic homogeneity, which encourages an anthill mentality and a lack of individualism. Often, such reasons are known by the society that has the "problematic aspects" that you are talking about, but little can be done to change anything by that society. At that point, sometimes outside pressure, derision, and ridicule of the society and its problematic aspects can help encourage awareness and change. The alternative is to say or do nothing, which is much worse.

I think that one should look at a culture in such a way as to not allow the things that you do not care for to contaminate your view of the entire culture and people.
Which is where I see you standing in regards to the Chinese, Will.

This thread is neither about me nor the Chinese. Keep it that way.

 

[parmalee]

One thing I'm a little unclear on is how exactly one "measures" the depths of depravity, cruelty, or war-like-ness of a culture.

For instance, going back to the Gandhi quote regarding how a culture treats animals, we can consider on one hand, a bunch of videos on Youtube of Chinese girls torturing bunnies (which I'm pretty certain goes on in the U.S. as well, but...), and on the other, the billions of animals that are tortured and slaughtered in factory farms, in cosmetics laboratories, and within the military in the U.S. How does one compare?

And as to the matter of "war-like cultures," I'm not particularly fond of them either--unless they are of the Genghis Khan variety. That said--and this is a question for WillNever--is the U.S. not a "war-like culture" in your eyes? And if your answer is "no," I've gotta ask you: seriously? Like, where have you been for the past century? Or more particularly, for the past thirty years or so?

 

[wynn]

Use this thread to talk about whether or not we should embrace all aspects of all other cultures, or if it is reasonable to admire some cultures while looking down on other cultures.

As long as we ourselves are a member of a culture, we will inevitably admire some cultures or some aspects of other cultures, while look down on others.


The actual problem is that the modern multiculturalist movement for intercultural tolerance is demanding the impossible: respect all cultures, all their aspects, as if all would be equally good and right. Such respect is possible only if we give up all of our values and discernment and instead turn to mindless robots.

 

[quadraphonics]

This thread is neither about me nor the Chinese.

It is not possible for any thread created by you on the subject of cross-cultural respect not to be about you and your views on China and certain other cultures. This is the bed you've made for yourself, so don't bother demanding that anyone else sleep in it.

 

[quadraphonics]

One thing I'm a little unclear on is how exactly one "measures" the depths of depravity, cruelty, or war-like-ness of a culture.

In practice, the cultures that one is presently not getting along with, for whatever reason, are the ones that exhibit "depravity," "cruelty," etc.

In principle, the whole question is an ill-posed mess of trollbait. It founders on various classic issues of relativism, historical perspective, politics, etc. Short of divine judgement, there don't seem to be any real answers.

These two aspects adequately explain all related phenomena visible here - no?

For instance, going back to the Gandhi quote regarding how a culture treats animals, we can consider on one hand, a bunch of videos on Youtube of Chinese girls torturing bunnies (which I'm pretty certain goes on in the U.S. as well, but...), and on the other, the billions of animals that are tortured and slaughtered in factory farms, in cosmetics laboratories, and within the military in the U.S. How does one compare?

Easy: one picks a side and selects shit to throw at the other.

Although: I don't think you'll find that China scores any better on the whole factory farms, animal testing, etc. scale than does the USA. Quite possibly worse.

On the other hand, both China and the USA have made a point of working together to try to preserve and cultivate the Panda population, both for its own sake and as a symbol of international peace and cooperation. How does this figure in to the calculus?

And as to the matter of "war-like cultures,"

Have we really established an unequivocable philosophical basis for saying that "war-like" is a negative attribute of a culture? Yeah, yeah, war is bad and all that, but aren't the will and ability to successfully wage war when such is necessary actually a good thing? Is that "warlike," or is something else implied?

Are we using "warlike" to mean something more like "imperialistic" or "brutish?"

The phrase that gets thrown around in the UN is "peace-loving." But, one can love peace perfectly well, and still consider the world a dangerous place that imposes a necessity for war onto peace-loving peoples. No?

That said--and this is a question for WillNever--is the U.S. not a "war-like culture" in your eyes? And if your answer is "no," I've gotta ask you: seriously? Like, where have you been for the past century? Or more particularly, for the past thirty years or so?

But how do you establish that the visible history of warfare is a product of an innate cultural "war-likeness," and not something that history or other external factors has imposed onto the USA? What does it even mean to be "warlike," and is it really even a cultural value at all, or rather a product of geopolitical position and the shifting tides of power politics?

All of which is to illustrate that these interactions come down to politicized exercises, and not absolute philosophical designations.

 

[quadraphonics]

The actual problem is that the modern multiculturalist movement for intercultural tolerance is demanding the impossible: respect all cultures, all their aspects, as if all would be equally good and right. Such respect is possible only if we give up all of our values and discernment and instead turn to mindless robots.

Nah, that overstates it. One can perfectly well respect the basic agency and self-determination of all cultures without endorsing each and every last aspect of every culture. You can disapprove of various aspects of a culture, but still accord it equal respect. Indeed, it is actually a manifestation of imperialism to insist at the outset that respect can only be accorded to those groups who totally conform to one's preferences to begin with. Genuine respect means tolerating the prerogative of others to do or exhibit things that are, in your view, mistakes.

 

[Gustav]

Do you agree with the above statement?

absolutely
disparagement implies malice
malice implies wickedness
wickedness implies satan
satan implies hell

welcome back lord hillyer

/snort

 

[chimpkin]

Willnever:
For instance, a lot of people on this board have exhibited resentment toward the culture of the people of Israel, criticizing their secularism, militarism, even going so far as to suggest that they aren't actually a culture at all.

Israel is violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
When I criticize Israel, I criticize what they do.
You called the people of *ahem* a certain country "Little shits".
Yes you did.
Which means you denigrated what they are. Rather than saying, "There are many parts of their culture I profoundly don't like," you condemn them all. Culture, place, and people, you make a sweeping condemnation of them all.
Do you get the difference?

 

[quadraphonics]

Israel is violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
When I criticize Israel, I criticize what they do.

I doubt that WillNever's observation was particularly aimed at you. If it was, I could agree that it was misplaced. But meanwhile, there is no shortage of posters here who criticize Israelis/Jews for what they are, in sweeping terms and in open defiance of individualism.

They may well be motivated to such criticism by the situation vis-a-vis Palestine, but do not shy away from phrasing such in essentialist terms. Quite a bit of the discourse here begins and ends in terms of assertions about inherent cultural attributes.

 

[Gustav]

Nah, that overstates it. One can perfectly well respect the basic agency and self-determination of all cultures without endorsing each and every last aspect of every culture. You can disapprove of various aspects of a culture, but still accord it equal respect. Indeed, it is actually a manifestation of imperialism to insist at the outset that respect can only be accorded to those groups who totally conform to one's preferences to begin with. Genuine respect means tolerating the prerogative of others to do or exhibit things that are, in your view, mistakes.

quad
can you justify why respect is required? can't one remain non-committal yet tolerant?

i think one can. my shrugs are genuine. i really do not care to be opinionated about whatever it is that is under consideration

i therefore reject this thread on the grounds of a faulty premise
it should be closed

 

[quadraphonics]

can you justify why respect is required?

Not really. Just addressing the premises of the thread. We can attack that one as well, but one thing at a time.

can't one remain non-committal yet tolerant?

Is there even much of a difference between that and respect-properly-construed? Seems to me that if you're committed to tolerance or even just non-judgement, you're basically respecting some type of basic agency on some level, no? If "respect" is misconstrued as something like "approval," as seems to be the case here, then there's a dichotomy. But I don't accept that.

i therefore reject this thread on the grounds of a faulty premise
it should be closed

I'm unsure whether "faulty premise" is sufficient grounds for closure, as such.

But yeah, I think the subject begs more questions than it answers: it seems to speak to some implied desire for an objective, philosphical rank-ordering of cultures by "morality" or something. I.e., it wants to erect some framework will dictate who are the "bad guys" and who the "good guys" and so demand that we (mis)treat cultures accordingly. Which is pretty obviously fraught with all kinds of hubris and so absolutely begging for politicization. Hence the resulting discourse - which seems unavoidable in practice even if one holds the basic project to be workable in principle.

 

[WillNever]

You can disapprove of various aspects of a culture, but still accord it equal respect.

You can, but is it a good idea? Does it even make sense to do so? Do sciforums users consider it inappropriate to not afford respect to cultures who have various aspects that they disapprove of?

 

[quadraphonics]

You can, but is it a good idea?

Depends on whether you think getting into a war with said culture is a good idea, it seems.

 

[WillNever]

Once again: you have obviously created this thread to call me out, so how about you grow a set of balls and be up-front about it?

I did that once and the thread got locked because by naming a name, it was deemed a "target thread" which was not permitted.

Now, I withhold names in order to maintain people's dignity.

 

[Gustav]

Is there even much of a difference between that and respect-properly-construed? Seems to me that if you're committed to tolerance or even just non-judgement, you're basically respecting some type of basic agency on some level, no? I

yes
that would be the principles of human rights and the laws that govern them. abstractions. that is what i accord respect. not specific acts by specific cultures. those i tolerate (a negative imputation is not a consequence of that term) and my personal feelings, if any, are inconsequential


lets see what hillyer thinks...

Nor do I think we should be expected to tolerate (much less respect) cultures who celebrate the destruction of life.

he draws a distinction. respect implies above and beyond tolerance. possibly approval

Not really.

respect is probably not required in order to live and let live

given all 3 sentiments, i again ask for the closure of this thread due to a faulty premise

 

[quadraphonics]

I did that once and the thread got locked because by naming a name, it was deemed a "target thread" which was not permitted.

Now, I withhold names in order to maintain people's dignity.

I have already pointed out here that the thin veneer of deniability you pulled up in this case fails to disqualify this thread as a target thread - in fact, makes such even more trollish by pretending to be otherwise while still clearly calling me out, and so attempting to misrepresent my distaste at such as some problem on my part and not a legitimate objection to genuine trolling.

But it seems to have snowed certain empowered suckers, at least so far.

Anyway, how about you just do not engage in call-out threads at all? I.e., avoid not only naming names, but using phrases like "another poster said," "it was said in another thread," etc. If you want to discuss ideas as such, then there is no purpose in mentioning where they came from, including quotes, etc. There should not be any references to anyone else's statements, and certainly no rephrasings of such. Simply scrubbing names off is not only insufficient, it actually heightens the offense.

 

[quadraphonics]

yes
that would be the principles of human rights and the laws that govern them. abstractions. that is what i accord respect. not specific acts by specific cultures. those i tolerate (a negative imputation is not a consequence of that term) and my personal feelings, if any, are inconsequential

Well, wait, you skipped over the actual subject: the cultures themselves. Leaving aside specific acts, or more basic principles, where do these social constructs ("cultures") that putatively "own" these actions and embody whichever subsets of principles, fit into the scheme?

he draws a distinction. respect implies above and beyond tolerance. possibly approval

Again, my view is that he's misconstruing "respect" as "approval" there, and that his basic expression of "tolerance" itself already entails "respect," properly construed. YMMV.

respect is probably not required in order to live and let live

I think that "live and let live" is effectively the definition of "respect," in the sense of "respect a culture's agency and self-determination." Which is the only sense in which I have heard the proposition "all cultures deserve equal respect" argued.

But I recognize that there is another sense of "respect" which is more like "esteem." I guess this is more at issue here. Personally I find that sense to be in some tension with how I employ the term, and quite likely an outright strawman in the implication that anybody has argued that everyone needs to actively approve of all cultural practices everywhere. I don't see where anyone has argued that. I consider myself a proponent of the proposition that all cultures merit respect, but I certainly disapprove of any number of specific cultural practices.

 

[Gustav]

Well, wait, you skipped over the actual subject: the cultures themselves. Leaving aside specific acts, or more basic principles, where do these social constructs ("cultures") that putatively "own" these actions and embody whichever subsets of principles, fit into the scheme?

like what? incestuous homosexual relations b/w adults?. i prefer to remain non committal with regards to that tho i will hold in high esteem, the freedom of expression and association and all that it entails along with the necessary clauses. the principles that enable and empower any particular action or expression

Again, my view is that he's misconstruing "respect" as "approval" there, and that his basic expression of "tolerance" itself already entails "respect," properly construed. YMMV.

i am not sure why you hold it to be misconstrued since i personally find myself approving of what i hold worthy of respect to some degree or another. to the second, a definite no...["expected to tolerate (much less respect)". the semantics indicate there is a clear distinction b/w the two

I think that "live and let live" is effectively the definition of "respect," in the sense of "respect a culture's agency and self-determination." Which is the only sense in which I have heard the proposition "all cultures deserve equal respect" argued.

live and let live is more akin to slogans like the golden rule rather than containing some implicit definition of respect

lets try these for size

one lets others live because one wants the same for oneself
one exhibits a tolerance towards others because one wants the same
one respects others because one is also desirous of respect

the last seems out of place
it seems like a vacuous expression and rather unproductive
then again the distinction i make seem rather labored

But I recognize that there is another sense of "respect" which is more like "esteem." I guess this is more at issue here.

yes
deference or esteem