Are all cultures worthy of equal respect?

[quadraphonics]

Moral relativism is still an evaluation system; but it is an internally illogical one, as it is both an evaluation system as well as a system that proposes there be no evaluating.

That's obtuse. Moral relativism doesn't do away with evaluation. It's a system for arbitrating who has standing to judge which aspects of a particular culture. Those who are members of a culture do not have their standing to evaluate their own culture reduced, nor is the prerogative of any individual, anywhere, to speak to the impacts of any culture outside its boundaries reduced. All it says is that outsiders have no businesses judging the internal relations of foreign cultures.

Of course, the boundaries between cultures are never as clear-cut as all that, but that's the basic principle that you're declaring self-inconsistent.

The objectionable thing about moral (actually, cultural) relativism is that it divides everybody up into exclusive "cultures" and vests the primary agency at that level. This runs roughshod over individualism (and of course moral absolutism, but that's by design).

 

[Arioch]

@quad --

It depends, as always, on what brand of cultural relativism you're dealing with. Loose cultural relativism, which is pretty much what you're describing in your post, is relatively harmless under most circumstances, but it also happens to be bloody pointless in an age where we live in a global community and are affected by each other's problems(the days of cultural independence ended when our economic independence ended, but I still see that as a good thing). The fact that my neighbor's problems are affecting me means that I am well within my rights to comment on them(though not in my rights to force them to conform to some arbitrary standard of my own). Weak cultural relativism, like you describe in your post, is a relic of the past, something that is no longer applicable in today's world.

Strict cultural relativism, on the other hand, is a far more dangerous proposition, and also internally inconsistent. It states something along the lines of "all ideas are equally valid so long as they are useful" and has been used to justify everything from pedophilia to the Holocaust. Of course, it's all a bunch of bunk, because if all ideas are equally valid then the idea that all ideas are not equally valid is just as valid as strict cultural relativism is. And thus does the idea collapse.

 

[too-open-minded]

A poster in a different thread stated this:

Do you agree with the above statement? This person has also stated that being a cultural "bigot" is no better than being a racial bigot. I am unsure as to what a cultural bigot is, but I assume that it is one who is critical of other cultures simply for their identity.

I must admit that I don't agree with the above. I believe that some cultures have fundamental aspects to them that are flawed. For example, I certainly don't hold war-like cultures in the same esteem that I hold peace-loving cultures. I see nothing positive about being war-like. Nor do I think we should be expected to tolerate (much less respect) cultures who celebrate the destruction of life. Historically, sacrificing virgins was held as an ideal by certain cultures, as one example, and although that practice might be integral to those cultures, I believe that their practices should be put down and discouraged.

In my opinion, when it is a society's culture to torture and kill, then it isn't culture at all. It's just barbarism. And at that point, their culture ceases to be worthy of respect. Not until they change their ways, at any rate.

What is your view? 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.

My view is regardless of how different and war like a culture is, that they have something to teach us and we have something to teach them.

Think about Spaniards and the Meso-american indians. The Spaniards could have learned about early astrophysics and the indians could have learned about the wheel and engineering. With the end result being both cultures built off each other.

 

[Cavalier]

My view is regardless of how different and war like a culture is, that they have something to teach us and we have something to teach them.

Think about Spaniards and the Meso-american indians. The Spaniards could have learned about early astrophysics and the indians could have learned about the wheel and engineering. With the end result being both cultures built off each other.

Do you believe that the British in India really should have respected the choice of some Indians to pressure widows to burn themselves alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands, as was the tradition of sati? Do you agree with General Charles James Napier (British General in India), who said, perhaps apocryphally:

Burning widows is your custom; so you may prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When we see men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gallows on which to hang all involved when the widow is consumed. Let us all respect one another's national customs.

I think we all would do well to be humble when evaluating another culture, and to recognize where we can that cultural bias is real, and that perceived differences may not be as substantive or as important as they appear at first glance. That said, once self-reflection and a solid questioning of one's biases are complete, one still have to act in accordance with one's own view of morality when dealing with any new practice, norm or culture (a differing "culture" really being a set of unfamiliar practices and social norms).

 

[sigurdV]

A poster in a different thread stated this:
Originally Posted by Name Withheld
All disparaging remarks about any culture should be a cause of personal offense to any intelligent person with a conscience.

Do you agree with the above statement? This person has also stated that being a cultural "bigot" is no better than being a racial bigot. I am unsure as to what a cultural bigot is, but I assume that it is one who is critical of other cultures simply for their identity.

I must admit that I don't agree with the above. I believe that some cultures have fundamental aspects to them that are flawed. For example, I certainly don't hold war-like cultures in the same esteem that I hold peace-loving cultures. I see nothing positive about being war-like. Nor do I think we should be expected to tolerate (much less respect) cultures who celebrate the destruction of life. Historically, sacrificing virgins was held as an ideal by certain cultures, as one example, and although that practice might be integral to those cultures, I believe that their practices should be put down and discouraged.

In my opinion, when it is a society's culture to torture and kill, then it isn't culture at all. It's just barbarism. And at that point, their culture ceases to be worthy of respect. Not until they change their ways, at any rate.

What is your view? 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.

1 If his own statement is a disparaging remark on any culture then
he should feel offended by his own remark or he is not an intelligent person with a conscience.
2 Admiring or looking down are feelings and as such unreasonable.

 

[kx000]

Any culture taken out of a magazine is automatically disqualified. I personally don't believe in the notion of culture because In my opinion there is a best way at everything; music, sports, dancing, etc.

If the Inca had ever saw a better way of dancing, or dressing they would hop on the bandwagon or they would eventually be sounded by it. As we are all one tribe, and if your not part of that tribe for one reason or another then your part of tribe B.

 

[wellwisher]

Moral relativism doesn't do away with evaluation. It's a system for arbitrating who has standing to judge which aspects of a particular culture. Those who are members of a culture do not have their standing to evaluate their own culture reduced, nor is the prerogative of any individual, anywhere, to speak to the impacts of any culture outside its boundaries reduced. All it says is that outsiders have no businesses judging the internal relations of foreign cultures.

I don't believe in moral relativism because this is illogical. That is a con job based on philosophy and bad science. If you look at marriage, for example, married men and women have the longest life expectancy. This higher level of longevity connects marriage to natural selection, since natural selection is not based on picking the worse but on picking the optimized.

Bad science using science magic tricks came up with relativism since that was the result philosophy wanted, putting the cart before the horse. Even with the data of longevity, the con is still being exploited by mutant science.

What moral relativism does is create more jobs and more pretend experts. If eating dirt is as good as eating cereal, since it is all relative, we can sell dirt along side cereal. This creates experts and jobs.

Another logical standard one can apply to help see through the illusions of relative morality, is to compare the social costs for each relative behavior choice. Natural does not have a social safety net, which is why it tries to pick the optimized. The safety net allows the con to appear real. But if we eliminate it, hypothetically (compare costs) the cheapest is natural.

For example, say we con people to believe that dirt and cereal are relative foods. As long as we have a lot of medical resources to assist those who eat the dirt so they become par with those who eat the cereal, we can say these are relative, since the final result appears the same. The social cost is the magic trick. There is a lot of money to be made assisting relative, so the con continues.

The same trick is used for moral relativism. The social cost is used to offset the real differences so we can con people to believe it is relative. The experiment I would do is remove all the social safety net and resources connected to social relativism and let nature take its course.

 

[iceaura]

The principle of respecting all cultures, like that of loving all mothers, does not always provide us with sufficient guidance for action.

Some cultures destroy or exploit others, for example. Some provide more food or material goods from given landscapes. Some are more nomadic or expansive than others. We still have to employ reason and evaluative analysis, to handle such conflicts between cultures - simply respecting them all, even respecting them all equally, does not settle the matter of what to do. Our alternatives do not affect different cultures equally, and alternatives exclude.

In so employing, we will need to (of necessity) establish grounds and principles independent of the particular cultures involved - even better if they were independent of culture altogether, drawn from the larger or inclusive contexts in which human cultures take shape or derive their meaning.

That's where the trouble starts, maybe. Not in the all but self-evident reality of "relativism" in all features of human cultures, but in the nature of the outer and meaningful context used to compare cultures. And possibly in the use of reason itself.

 

[sigurdV]

The principle of respecting all cultures, like that of loving all mothers, does not always provide us with sufficient guidance for action.

Some cultures destroy or exploit others, for example. Some provide more food or material goods from given landscapes. Some are more nomadic or expansive than others. We still have to employ reason and evaluative analysis, to handle such conflicts between cultures - simply respecting them all, even respecting them all equally, does not settle the matter of what to do. Our alternatives do not affect different cultures equally, and alternatives exclude.

In so employing, we will need to (of necessity) establish grounds and principles independent of the particular cultures involved - even better if they were independent of culture altogether, drawn from the larger or inclusive contexts in which human cultures take shape or derive their meaning.

That's where the trouble starts, maybe. Not in the all but self-evident reality of "relativism" in all features of human cultures, but in the nature of the outer and meaningful context used to compare cultures. And possibly in the use of reason itself.

Stimulating read, but what do you mean by the red sentence?

 

[Gustav]

 

[kx000]

And this has what to do with culture?

 

[Gustav]

well see here mister

In so employing, we will need to (of necessity) establish grounds and principles independent of the particular cultures involved ........

it is already done
years ago