Culture does not make Right

[S.A.M.]

I totally agree with the OP.

If the 'culture' in my country says I have the right to kill all young men who wear sportswear, is that moral because it's my culture?

Depends on whether you recognise countries formed by genocide.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Often, people (and particularly men) like to excuse the mistreatment of women in muslim societies, American polygamist communities, or any situation where women are routinely subjected to a life of subjugation and objectification, by declaring in a large bold voice: "it's their culture, they have a right to do that."

That only tells one side of the story though, because in the above examples, it is the men who control that society and decide what the culture will be, while the women at large really have no choice in the matter, having been born into such treatment. So when you say that muslim societies should be allowed to deny women an education, arrest them for undressing, or execute them for adultery, or any other cruel act of brutality, simply because "it's their culture," what you really mean to say is that it is the men's culture, because the men are the ones who shaped that patriarchal culture into the way it is now. The fact is that the women never volunteered for such treatment, nor do those women have the means to change the nasty way that they are treated in those chauvinistic hellholes.

Take those polygamist communities out in Utah for example. Saying "it's a different culture, so it's all okay" doesn't fly, because the choices of the women in those compounds is very limited as compared to the choices we have. The leaders of those communities are men, not women, so women don't get to decide the rules of that community. Additionally, the women in those communities cannot just up and leave whenever they feel like it, because they have children that do not belong to them only. Furthermore, those women are ill-equipped to free themselves from that culture, should they somehow abduct their children from their polygamist fathers, because they are (1) sometimes underage (2) always uneducated and (3) not financially independent, even as adults. Most of them have lived as homemakers for most of their lives. They don't have any money, any car, any place to live, or the history to get a job. The bottom line is that no self-respecting woman with an education and freedom in life would voluntarily subject herself to such a clearly exploitative lifestyle. The women who are born into those communities are indoctrinated from birth and as they come of age and bear children, they have no choice in the matter as to how they are treated in those villages and as to whether or not they can leave.

The point is that saying "it's their culture" makes for a very poor excuse when used to rationalize situations where male chauvinism is resulting in psychological and physical harm to women, in addition to denying freedom and education to women. Cultural relativism blows too. In those situations, it is usually just one side who controls that culture, while everyone else is stuck with it.

Who agrees?

Of course it's not a complete answer, but "it's our culture" is also not an air tight excuse for westerners foisting "superior" cultural norms around the world. That we, as a culture, would like everyone to be like us is neither a reason that they should be like us, nor an excuse for our imposing ourselves on others.

Would you be willing to cede autonomy to your children (let's say 14-17 year old teenagers) if they argued that you oppress them? Where does your authority over your teens come from? Culture. The some culture that makes sure that adults are in charge and denies those teenagers the right to vote.

Of course the comeback is that parents rule over their children benignly and for their own good, but what overlord hasn't broken out that old chestnut?

More practically, how many trillions of dollars and lives of soldiers are you willing to spend on a crusade to bring freedom and equality to these women? What do you do with the women who think you're wrong?

My own view is that there is no objective right and wrong in the world, and even those things that I feel strongly about were imparted to me by culture. So it stands to reason that I see my culture as better than "others."

People here on this forum have argued and continue to believe that the eating of animals (or at least those with nervous systems) is immoral and predicated on a human enslavement of so-called "lesser lifeforms." It's certainly true that a cow has no chance to escape its fate.

Who's to say that in some distant future, where India is a superpower and the U.S. a backwater, that they won't start trying to coerce us into giving up steak and leather and pointing to their belief that cow-consumption is cultural flaw we have that cannot be justified by tradition alone?

 

[WillNever]

Of course it's not a complete answer, but "it's our culture" is also not an air tight excuse for westerners foisting "superior" cultural norms around the world. That we, as a culture, would like everyone to be like us is neither a reason that they should be like us, nor an excuse for our imposing ourselves on others.

Because our way doesn't endorse the execution of innocents is the reason for the imposition of our beliefs, not "it's our culture." Once a culture makes it policy to deliberately behave in ways that hurt the harmless, then that culture is no longer WORTHY of being tolerated. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

[Baron Max]

... Once a culture makes it policy to deliberately behave in ways that hurt the harmless, then that culture is no longer WORTHY of being tolerated. ...

Your idealism is just that ....idealism ...without being tempered by the realities of the world. Idealism is a wonderful thing ...but only for fairy tales and such.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Right comes from the muzzle of a gun ....and wrong is usually stuck at the muzzle end of that gun when it goes off.

Look back through history, Will, and tell me if "right" hasn't always been dictated by the one who holds the biggest gun (holds the power). It's always been that way and it always will be as long as humans exist.

Baron Max

 

[iceaura]

Depends on whether you recognise countries formed by genocide.

There's another kind of nation state?

Or are we to refuse to recognize the lot of them?

Meanwhile, the discussion was of cultures, not countries.

 

[WillNever]

Your idealism is just that ....idealism ...without being tempered by the realities of the world. Idealism is a wonderful thing ...but only for fairy tales and such.

That's how I operate, and I'm not a faerie tale. Plenty of people out there are like me. Those who aren't, and prefer to tolerate intolerance, are the ones who refuse to grow up and leave the cave.

 

[Norsefire]

I totally agree with the OP.

If the 'culture' in my country says I have the right to kill all young men who wear sportswear, is that moral because it's my culture?

Yes. Morals depend on a consensus in society, so assuming everyone viewed it that way then sure.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Because our way doesn't endorse the execution of innocents is the reason for the imposition of our beliefs, not "it's our culture." Once a culture makes it policy to deliberately behave in ways that hurt the harmless, then that culture is no longer WORTHY of being tolerated. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Right is only right, and wrong wrong, to the extent that your culture tells you so and you decide to believe it.

Eating domesticated animals is "wrong" in the views of many, and they are harmless too. Other people view the eating of meat as perfectly acceptable based on evolutionary or cultural grounds. The moral outrage and superiority you express in your post is no different than the moral outrage some feel when confronted with cultures that eat dog meat or horse meat, and it's understandable. Our culture says that dogs are for befriending and not eating, while other cultures say they are for befriending and being delicious. To us, the latter only seems questionable because it is outside our cultural norms.

Unless you have a direct hotline to God (and can objectively prove that you are not insane), there is no way to determine what is objectively moral or immoral and therefore no intellectually sound way to determine objectively right from wrong.

If exploiting other people is wrong, then I suggest you take a close look at the goods westerners import, then look into the conditions in the Asian and South American sweatshops that produce them. The employers of the workers may be the ones who exploit these workers face to face, but its the consumers who ignore the conditions who are the real engines behind those practices.

Personally, I am aware that there is exploitation and unfairness in the world, and feel that you need to find a particularly egregious example in order to warrant doing anything about it. The only place where the world's inequities do not penetrate is in the minds of certain pampered people in the western world, as our culture is designed to shield us from harsh reality. We don't even like hearing the details of hot dog production (which is reasonably humane, just disgusting), let alone the way veal is raised. We certainly don't like hearing about the plight of migrant workers and their families in this country, or of the homeless. We prefer it when they just remain out of sight and thus (in our minds) theoretical.

It's a curiosity of the modern world not that we have eliminated unfairness and exploitation, but that we hide it so well that we can pretend we did, and we then incorporate its eradication into the cultural mythology. That said, we absolutely cannot export our mythology, because there are still plenty of people we ourselves need to see exploited to sustain the western way of life.

If we are going to champion such notions abroad, then let';s put our money where our mouths are, let's eliminate exploitation where it actually affects us, and then move on to the cases where it doesn't. We can start with migrant workers in this country slaving away for less than a livable wage. It might double the price of our produce, but c'est la vie. We can then tackle issues of child and sweatshop labor abroad by not buying from places like walmart or otherwise demanding the lowest prices possible. (And if we must look for the lowest prices, then we should be shocked when they are obtained by producers engaging in disreputable practices.) We also need to stop subsidizing our farmers, since it is well known that they in particular causes poverty and other problems in the third world.

It seems to me that we should have our own houses in order before start throwing stones, especially given that there are no objectively provable criteria for identifying proper targets.

 

[swarm]

We should really be thankful the government has bankrupted the country not "brining democracy" to Iraq and Afganistan. Afterall, the couple trillion dollars we threw away might have rebuilt our infrastructure, educated our kids, healed our sick, or just kept our currancy from becoming the next peso.

What's a million or so lives destroyed when we can look at the progress made in Iraq? After all that money they are only worse off than they were at the end of the first gulf war.

 

[WillNever]

This thread is about abuse toward women by overbearing men, not people who eat horse meat. Keep it that way.

One of these activities is dangerous (and often, lethal) to women, while the other activity, as far as we know, hurts no one at all.

 

[S.A.M.]

There's another kind of nation state?

Or are we to refuse to recognize the lot of them?

Meanwhile, the discussion was of cultures, not countries.

You don't think these "cultures" have a history of oppression? I'd say the use of arsenal, chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, a couple of world wars, a holocaust [and a history of ethnocentric pogroms, which is once again raising its ugly head in the same self described "secular" states], the creation of an oppressed class of nations to feed their lifestyles, the installation and support for undemocratic regimes and a complete lack of respect for the sovereignty of states [hence the tendency to liberate them by carpet bombing their civilians] would point to a very specific kind of culture.

 

[iceaura]

You don't think these "cultures" have a history of oppression?

What "cultures"? You seem to be talking about countries, maybe?

I'd say the use of arsenal, chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, a couple of world wars, a holocaust [and a history of ethnocentric pogroms, which is once again raising its ugly head in the same self described "secular" states], the creation of an oppressed class of nations to feed their lifestyles, the installation and support for undemocratic regimes and a complete lack of respect for the sovereignty of states [hence the tendency to liberate them by carpet bombing their civilians] would point to a very specific kind of culture.

? I can't think of what "culture" that would be. Somewhere in there you've got Abrahamic theistic religion combined with technological capability, but the "complete lack of respect for the sovereignty of states" business seems to point to tribal stuff (Pashtuns, Kurds), the "creation of an oppressed class of nations" would be any empire (wide variety of cultures there), and so forth.

And the original bit there about "founded on genocide" doesn't seem to match very many cultures at all.

If you could be a little more clear whether you are talking about capability rather than trait, and country rather than culture, as seems likely - - -

 

[S.A.M.]

What "cultures"? You seem to be talking about countries, maybe? ? I can't think of what "culture" that would be.

But you had no difficulty in identifying the "culture" the OP was referring to? Because I was hard pressed to find any connection to a particular culture there.

Somewhere in there you've got Abrahamic theistic religion combined with technological capability, but the "complete lack of respect for the sovereignty of states" business seems to point to tribal stuff (Pashtuns, Kurds), the "creation of an oppressed class of nations" would be any empire (wide variety of cultures there), and so forth.

Hmm you're right. I did miss the invasions, occupations, world wars, creation of a third world, sustenance of a disposable lifestyle through sustained economic exploitation and carpet bombing of other countries in adition to population replacement of coloured peoples by the Pashtuns and Kurds. Not to mention their tendency to conduct pogroms when minorities get too uppity or prolific.

If you could be a little more clear whether you are talking about capability rather than trait, and country rather than culture, as seems likely - - -

what do you think?

 

[Pandaemoni]

This thread is about abuse toward women by overbearing men, not people who eat horse meat. Keep it that way.

One of these activities is dangerous (and often, lethal) to women, while the other activity, as far as we know, hurts no one at all.

You mean the other hurts no being that your culture considers sufficiently important to merit concern. My point is that the identification of oppression of women and children as being a problem and the degree to which you perceive it to be a problem, is only one of the myriad cultural differences that people could point to...and if other cultures came here to impose their beliefs on us, I suspect you'd dismiss them and their concerns. You assume that our culture and our values are "right" and that any system grounded in different principles is "wrong," and that is a very chauvinistic mentality. If you expect other cultures around the world to embrace your chauvinism with anything other than a derisive dismissal or with gunfire, you're overly optimistic.

My guess is that you believe that morality is objective and that a given action *is* right or *is* wrong. I do not believe that. In my view morality is subjective and that there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

 

[WillNever]

Physically abusing women and children are activities that threaten people's basic well-being. That's a biological and a psychological problem, and that holds true *across* cultures, and that's not up for debate. In every scenario, it's a problem that is harmful to the society at large... so it should come as no surprise that countries who routinely practice such things are shitty places to live.

You're right that I'm optimistic. Optimistic that we in the so-called West are moving away from that stone aged crappola... while these other cultural sinkholes continue to suck donkey dicks in the desert for another hundred years.

 

[S.A.M.]

Physically abusing women and children are activities that threaten people's basic well-being. That's a biological and a psychological problem, and that holds true *across* cultures, and that's not up for debate. In every scenario, it's a problem that is harmful to the society at large... so it should come as no surprise that countries who routinely practice such things are shitty places to live.

You're right that I'm optimistic. Optimistic that we in the so-called West are moving away from that stone aged crappola... while these other cultural sinkholes continue to suck donkey dicks in the desert.

For whom? The people living there seem to be happier than what I have seen in the west.

cultural sinkholes continue to suck donkey dicks in the desert

What is ironic is that these cultures seem to be able to carry on without feeling the need to bomb other countries into liberation. But the so-called progressive cultures cannot seem to survive unless they are occupying these "cultural sinkholes"

 

[WillNever]

Yah, tell that to screaming 11 year old girls who are bought off the internet over there, along with all the other victims of human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, which, along with Qatar, Kuwait, Cambodia, and North Korea, is officially recognized as one of the worst human trafficking violators in the whole world.

 

[S.A.M.]

And 25% men who frequent child prostitutes are American.

But human trafficking is far down the line. The economic policies required to maintain western lifestyles alone consume over 20,000 children every day.

 

[WillNever]

For whom? The people living there seem to be happier than what I have seen in the west.



What is ironic is that these cultures seem to be able to carry on without feeling the need to bomb other countries into liberation. But the so-called progressive cultures cannot seem to survive unless they are occupying these "cultural sinkholes"

That is because those cultures are more fond of terrorizing their own citizens.

And in spite of their desires to harm and control their women, they do feel that need. They're just not strong enough to follow through on it. Several countries in the Middle East have promised to eradicate the state of Israel from the world. Well, fat chance of THAT happening.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is because those cultures are more fond of terrorizing their own citizens. .

Note that every undemocratic regime in the Middle east is considered an ally. Every representative government, a terrorist state. That speaks volumes in and of itself.

And in spite of their desires to harm and control their women, they do feel that need. They're just not strong enough to follow through on it.

I've lived five years in Saudi Arabia. I can tell you haven't.

Several countries in the Middle East have promised to eradicate the state of Israel from the world. Well, fat chance of THAT happening

Ah now I see where you are coming from. Is it any wonder that you would support yet another ethnocentric white culture that believes in population replacement as its moral prerogative? Israel does not need anyone to eradicate its apartheid state, its perfectly capable of doing that on its own.