Are all cultures worthy of equal respect?

[The Esotericist]

Even if we don't afford all cultures equal respect, so what?

What are you going to do about it? As soon as you decide to act upon your disrespect, depending on those actions, your culture risks becoming something which you have stated that you dislike. Isn't it best then to just ignore it and let the other culture learn and grow at it's own pace?

If it's not your culture. . . what business is it of yours? :shrug:

 

[The Esotericist]

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.

BINGO

This is why Americans were so easily suckered into the Cold War, this is why Americans actually believe there is a good guy and bad buy in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, this is why Americans actually believe that there are such things as "terrorists," and why Americans will always believe in Washington's next fabricated enemy for the military industrial complex to fight that will be deserving of it's manufactured death . . . . despite independent journalists reporting on all the facts of how our world actually works.

Once we can dispense with these notions and realize that people are people. . . everywhere, then we can get rid of unnecessary (all?) war. The U.S. really need never go to war again at least. EVER.

When the U.S. does, they, at least, are a culture undeserving of respect.

 

[Arioch]

Once we can dispense with these notions and realize that people are people. . . everywhere, then we can get rid of unnecessary (all?) war. The U.S. really need never go to war again at least. EVER.

Yeah....not a fucking chance. You'd have to stop everyone everywhere from being human for that to work.

 

[wynn]

Yeah....not a fucking chance. You'd have to stop everyone everywhere from being human for that to work.

Yes.

 

[wynn]

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.

No.

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

No.

I can, if I am safe and well-off enough, tolerate them, I can ignore them, I can be equanimous or non-committal toward them, but I cannot accord them 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.

What you call "imperialism" is actually a valid and necessary esteem for one's own value system.

Genuine respect means tolerating the prerogative of others to do or exhibit things that are, in your view, mistakes.

No. Respect entails deference, esteem, appreciation.

 

[wynn]

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.

To be moral is to seek that "objective, philosphical rank-ordering of cultures."

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.

It is not about justifying mistreatment.
It's about finding grounds for saying No - and not feeling guilty for saying No.

Modern multiculturalism tries to make us feel guilty for that No.

 

[wynn]

If it's not your culture. . . what business is it of yours?

Many of us live in a multicultural society.
Our coworkers, classmates, family members, neighbors are often from different cultures than ourselves. We live and work together - and so we have to learn to get along somehow, or we will suffer.

 

[chimpkin]

Do sciforums users consider it inappropriate to not afford respect to cultures who have various aspects that they disapprove of?

Do you like it when someone comes in here and tells you all Americans are a bunch of stupid, ignorant, fat, lazy, imperialist pigs who know next to nothing about the world, are all obsessed with sex, and thirst for the blood of good Muslim children?
(I needed the big trowel to lay it on that thick, yeah). Do you like getting condemned with all 300 million of us? Feel good?

To answer your question, yes.

Even Saudi Arabia has civility, hospitality...okay, yes, I really dislike a lot of Saudi culture. I suspect it to shift anyway when the giant oilfield, Ghawar, stops producing large amounts of oil.
A people are individuals, yes, but they pick up aspects of their culture, and so to condemn their culture is to condemn part of each person's identity as well.

Too, judging an entire culture presumes one's own cultural superiority.
It's d@mned arrogant.

.

 

[birch]

To be moral is to seek that "objective, philosphical rank-ordering of cultures."




It is not about justifying mistreatment.
It's about finding grounds for saying No - and not feeling guilty for saying No.

Modern multiculturalism tries to make us feel guilty for that No.

sure, makes sense in a fantasy world but i've yet to know a culture that was actually more moral and a 'people' better than another. some countries are 'safer' as in their laws give more personal freedom as well as personal protection through their laws but that's different than the hubris of trying to rank this based on morality which is a huge can of worms. some think western culture is more moral but i've yet to see that considering in reality if it's moral in one area, it's not in another and vice versa.

the point is when one is just considering 'culture', there is a tendency to objectify the people within it as being less moral than those of a culture you artificially assume is more moral when in fact within that society there are equally good and bad people. it's about 'people' in the end and this attitude or view tends to dehumanize others and especially by default falsely uphold another group as being inherently more moral when the reality is not the case. it is so much not the case that it is almost laughable for anyone to think this way or to state such with a straight face.

for instance, i've been in korea for the last few months and i've noticed they are a lot more civil, a lot more mannerly and a lot more disciplined than americans. i've rarely seen or experienced the kind of rudeness that is so much a part of american culture. seriously, i've seen americans act like pigs but they somehow assume they are more 'cultured', better, more wise, more moral. i've not seen that in real life and real life is dealing with ACTUAL, REAL PEOPLE. that said, there are areas that they could do better in or improve and vice versa for the west.

get it?? good.

 

[Arioch]

@chimpkin --

I dunno, if a culture is prone to producing people that...say...treat women like crap, should we not say so if they might find it offensive?

I'm not talking about things like "China is evil" or "all christians are stupid", such tripe should rightly be ridiculed as bigoted. However saying that islamic culture has a horrible human rights record is a truth, and thus saying it is by definition not bigoted. Where do we draw the line?

Then again, I'm one of those who thinks that people should be free to say pretty much whatever they want(so long as they're not actively endangering the lives or wellbeing of others, so no "fire!" in a movie theater), and in turn we have the freedom to say pretty much whatever we want about their comment. I guess you might say I'm a "freedom of speech" extremist of sorts, or maybe just a fundamentalist.

 

[Pineal]

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.

In noticed that respect is potentially being conflated with embracing all the facets of other cultures.

That seems like a very specific and demanding definition of respect. I respect a good number of people whose sum total of facets I do not come near to embracing. I don't even embrace all of my own facets.

The next part that stands out is the issue of whether it is 'reasonable' to admire some cultures while looking down on other cultures.

Must we be reasonable? If we are embracing all the facets of other cultures then surely we are embracing, tastes, emotional reactions, customs, and all sorts of non-rational facets of these cultures.

Why do we need to be reasonable?

I would start I suppose from a minimal damage respect. Am I being damaged by the other culture or persons in it? No, Good, check one. Is there some reason for me to feel like I must try to intervene in some way in how they live? Can I start with non-invasive approaches - like 'hey, don't cut out their clitorises, you jerks.'

Huge portions of most cultures seem like I can 'respect'. Chopsticks, fine. Going to that kind of temple, fine. Workaholics, fine. Folk dance costumes made of wool, fine. Not for me, cotton all the way when dancing, but what the heck do I care.

I am often amazed at how little indifference doesn't take of things like this. But I noticed growing up in a fairly diverse culture how easy it was too be disrespected for going outside the norms in ways that did not harm anyone.

Do we really respect exceptions, anomalies and subcultures in our own cultures?

 

[birch]

I dunno, if a culture is prone to producing people that...say...treat women like crap, should we not say so if they might find it offensive?

yes, some cultures or countries have aspects that are worse in some ways than others but that doesn't mean, for instance, the west does not have it's own areas of faults.

as for as treating women like crap, you don't have to be a non-westerner to have this attitude. sure, one may live in a country that doesn't allow the stoning of women etc but that doesn't mean males who think women are beneath them, are dumb, may mistreat or beat them, or have sexist views don't exist. uh, because they do and quite a few (understatement). again, people act in ways that are within the confines of their laws and can only push the envelope so far.

but as to ACTUAL PEOPLE. human nature is pretty much the same everywhere. have you not noticed? don't have to leave your native country to run into or find assholes. duh? :shrug:

that said, the glaring problem with the op is the dishonesty. he thinks it has to be black or white because it is based on seeing others as objects and to be blind to the immorality as well as corruption within his own culture and the bad people who also exist with in it just like anywhere else. every culture has good and bad. some worse than others but still that is a fact. what one may like about one culture, another may find it does not suit them.

 

[Pineal]

I'm not talking about things like "China is evil" or "all christians are stupid", such tripe should rightly be ridiculed as bigoted. However saying that islamic culture has a horrible human rights record is a truth, and thus saying it is by definition not bigoted. Where do we draw the line?

I suppose I go along with the free speech line also, but I read the above and it bothered me and I had to sit with it and then realized.

Who is this 'we'?
Liberal democracies have a horrible human rights record in the way they have dealt with the 3rd world. I think if 'we' attack 'them' then 'we' must also own up to 'our' crimes. And this might go a ways in creating a real dialogue. I am not saying suddenly this other culture would confess, but it changes the dynamic immediately.

But then 'I' am not sure what 'we' I am a part of. So I can free speech my way at both cultures.

 

[birch]

Who is this 'we'?
Liberal democracies have a horrible human rights record in the way they have dealt with the 3rd world. I think if 'we' attack 'them' then 'we' must also own up to 'our' crimes. And this might go a ways in creating a real dialogue. I am not saying suddenly this other culture would confess, but it changes the dynamic immediatel

finally, some intelligence. yes, other countries and cultures have faults they need to change BUT so has so-called 'democracies' also have their dark side with their own type of corruption/exploitation. this 'front' of pretending to be more moral is bs. it's just apples and oranges with different areas one needs to address for every culture, more or less.

 

[Arioch]

@Pineal --

Perhaps it wasn't obvious from my wording but I meant "we" as people, we as human beings. Nations and factions matter little to me.

 

[chimpkin]

@chimpkin --

I dunno, if a culture is prone to producing people that...say...treat women like crap, should we not say so if they might find it offensive?

I guess I didn't delineate it clearly enough...I said earlier that there's a difference between condemning certain things about a culture, and condemning the whole of it.

Condemning an entire culture seems to imply one considers one's own culture beyond reproach.
I live in the US. So does willnever.
If anyone here thinks the entire US culture is beyond reproach?
.........
*sound of crickets chirping*

So, an American condemning other cultures (because they are not America or something) really resembles a flaming hypocrite.

Um, I forgot where I was going with this, I had to eat benadryls for an asthma attack.

 

[Pineal]

@Pineal --

Perhaps it wasn't obvious from my wording but I meant "we" as people, we as human beings. Nations and factions matter little to me.

OK. But then in context it would like be 'we who are not part of Islamic culture who have different conceptions of human rights than it does - in this case like the difference would have to be one including distaste for some of their treatment of humans, and a concern about people in other cultures.' This last since I would guess that there are people in the world who don't torture, for example, but also don't care what happens to people outside their 'tribe' or nation.

And stlll, then, the Islamic world, will have a hard time hearing a critique from a Amereuropean as not coming from whatever nation they are a member of. Just as US citizens hearing an Arab, Egyptian national criticizing the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo as merely an individual, not a Muslim - if he or she is one - or an Egyptian.

Not that that good, necessarily.

So then we end up with, individuals can express their judgments of the practices of other nations/groups as individuals. And I certainly agree with this. However if these individuals are savvy about the behavior of groups they are not a part of, but not savvy about their own - and thus silent about say, US human rights abuses - this is a problem. If they are savvy, but choose to focus on cultures they are not a part of, I would sympathize with members of the other cultures who thought the person was being hypocritical.

But all this is good as long as it moves forward. If the individual judges the other culture and they point out potential hypocrisies and said individual is capable of facing the issues and seeing potential hypocrisies and then goes public with this issue also, we have had a nice development. IMHO.

So silence is not at all what I am suggesting. Noting potential hypocrisy and staying silent because of that is pretty terrible.

 

[Arioch]

@Pineal --

However if these individuals are savvy about the behavior of groups they are not a part of, but not savvy about their own - and thus silent about say, US human rights abuses - this is a problem.

Yes, that would be a problem, but the mere act of allowing anyone a say(regardless of what we might think of them as people) means that these omissions, whether deliberate or innocent, can be called out. We can criticize people, to a point, for such hypocrisies. However, even if they are being hypocritical and ignoring the abuses of their chosen group, it still doesn't invalidate anything they might have said, that can only truly be done with evidence(either a lack of evidence that should be there or evidence to the contrary). We can't just dismiss an argument because the person who made it is a hypocrite, it could still turn out to be true.

As for something not being easy for people to accept, well that's their problem, not mine. I know that there are a sizable number of things that I hate to be told(I hate it when I'm wrong, for example), but that doesn't prevent me from being able to accept and admit the truth when it's presented to me. I may not like it, but my love of intellectual honesty prevents me from denying it. I also know that most people aren't like that and that it took a good deal of hard work for me to get to the point that I could do that, however the fact that I(with my large number of faults and the fact that I'm not the most extraordinary of individuals, certainly not on this site) could do so leaves very little room for excuses in my mind.

I didn't really think that you were suggesting silence as the appropriate course of action, and there are very few outside of the religious circles who would(the whole "blasphemy" thing is such a huge issue for them for no apparent reason). But it is something that's commonly said and it's something that would, at this point, assuredly lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it, so I felt that it was something that was important to address(albeit in a rather roundabout fashion).

 

[wynn]

sure, makes sense in a fantasy world but i've yet to know a culture that was actually more moral and a 'people' better than another. some countries are 'safer' as in their laws give more personal freedom as well as personal protection through their laws but that's different than the hubris of trying to rank this based on morality which is a huge can of worms. some think western culture is more moral but i've yet to see that considering in reality if it's moral in one area, it's not in another and vice versa.

the point is when one is just considering 'culture', there is a tendency to objectify the people within it as being less moral than those of a culture you artificially assume is more moral when in fact within that society there are equally good and bad people. it's about 'people' in the end and this attitude or view tends to dehumanize others and especially by default falsely uphold another group as being inherently more moral when the reality is not the case. it is so much not the case that it is almost laughable for anyone to think this way or to state such with a straight face.

for instance, i've been in korea for the last few months and i've noticed they are a lot more civil, a lot more mannerly and a lot more disciplined than americans. i've rarely seen or experienced the kind of rudeness that is so much a part of american culture. seriously, i've seen americans act like pigs but they somehow assume they are more 'cultured', better, more wise, more moral. i've not seen that in real life and real life is dealing with ACTUAL, REAL PEOPLE. that said, there are areas that they could do better in or improve and vice versa for the west.

get it?? good.

It's a matter of understanding principles of moral evaluation.

 

[Arioch]

@chimpkin --

Condemning an entire culture seems to imply one considers one's own culture beyond reproach.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, but then I'm a "case by case" sort of person until a certain level of evidence has been built up.

So, an American condemning other cultures (because they are not America or something) really resembles a flaming hypocrite.

That's entirely understandable, however I still don't think that should disqualify their criticisms if they're actually valid criticisms.