cultural relativism

[egb_hibs]

tricky one this; should we or shouldn't we assert that our culture - or aspects of it at any rate - are better than alternatives, if the alternatives mean oppression of women, endless ruin (africa), oppressive collectivism or whatever?

there's no easy answer to this one imho. but i ultimately think you've got to stick to your guns on some points.

[psychocandy]

agreed. i dont think we should impose superficial aspects of it i.e. 9-5 days/mcdonalds resturants (i mean there's a starbucks in the forbidden city FFS!), but at the same time basic human values such as the equal treatment of all races/genders are something worth exporting and imposing.

[Hampden_Hibby]

Originally Posted by jacktaylor

agreed. i dont think we should impose superficial aspects of it i.e. 9-5 days/mcdonalds resturants (i mean there's a starbucks in the forbidden city FFS!),

Why are these aspects superficial? Sitting in the woods fashioning wooden wind chimes out of cedar doesn't pay the bills.

I don't think anyone from the West imposed Starbucks on the Chinese.

[psychocandy]

Originally Posted by Hampden_Hibby

Why are these aspects superficial? Sitting in the woods fashioning wooden wind chimes out of cedar doesn't pay the bills.

I don't think anyone from the West imposed Starbucks on the Chinese.

Pay who's bills? The opening of the east (specifically china and japan) was done only for western profits. The west has covertly exported superficial aspects of it's culture abroad for centuries. Opium in the 18th century, coffee in the 21st. Asia itself is becoming a testing ground for every dodgy take on capitalism concieved. Hong Kong is the city milton friedman build, shanghai the same but with bells on.

Edward Said's book 'orientalism' looks at the phenomenon of westernisation throughout the ages and it's interesting to see just how covertly and violently the west has forced itself upn the world with no regard for native cultres/religions/ideas. Partly born out of capitalism and partly out of christianity

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by jacktaylor

Pay who's bills?

the chinese are doing quite nicely out of this sort of thing these days

The opening of the east (specifically china and japan) was done only for western profits. The west has covertly exported superficial aspects of it's culture abroad for centuries. Opium in the 18th century, coffee in the 21st. Asia itself is becoming a testing ground for every dodgy take on capitalism concieved. Hong Kong is the city milton friedman build, shanghai the same but with bells on.

the hong kong that is in the vanguard for the long march out of tyranny, death and oppression in china?

Edward Said's book 'orientalism'

a somewhat notorious item of vicitimology i believe though i haven't read it. as an aside, the history of arab aggression against the west is as long as the other way around.

looks at the phenomenon of westernisation throughout the ages and it's interesting to see just how covertly and violently the west has forced itself upn the world with no regard for native cultres/religions/ideas. Partly born out of capitalism and partly out of christianity

fair enough.

let's imagine the world without it; stone age tribes dying with every whim of the weather. tribal violence decimating a large proportion of the population. oppression and mutilation of women. and so on.

it's swings and roundabouts in reality. we done some bad stuff, but it was hardly the garden of eden that we rampaged through.

[psychocandy]

no obviously not, and to an extent im playing devil's advocate here but at the same time I dont believe that rampant globalisation is really helping. the world is running short on resources, and checked/unsustainable production/consumption will one day lead to complete implosion

orientalism is certainly not an item of victimology. read it before spouting such rubbish on here.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by jacktaylor

orientalism is certainly not an item of victimology. read it before spouting such rubbish on here.

i feel it was a fair comment, based on commentary i have read, and contingent upon the caveat that i hadn't read it.

put it another way; i understand that it is widely held to be as i described, but i cannot personally corroborate that.

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i ultimately think you've got to stick to your guns on some points.

I agree - however, how do you justify your stance? May be you dont? I believe that human sacrifice is absolutely wrong as is rape, torture, murder and a whole host of other things that other cultures condone. I do not believe that any of this is wrong because of culture (we are justified in doing this because historically it is part of our culture) and more importantly because of evolution (we are justified in doing this because it promotes the survival of the species). Indeed murder may very well be culturally and evolutionarily advantageous. So, to repeat, how do you justify sticking to your guns? Relativists like yourself tend to reduce "sticking to your guns" to something like "yuck! I really dont like that". That isnt the basis for any kind of genuine criticism of moral and cultural relativism. We have argued before about the possibility of objective morality and you have made it very clear to me that you believe that it is all just the words we use, evolution and maybe a bit of sociology thrown in. For me that's not sticking to your guns against the pernicious threat of relativism, in fact it's the very epitome of relativism.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by arthurduncan

I agree - however, how do you justify your stance? May be you dont? I believe that human sacrifice is absolutely wrong as is rape, torture, murder and a whole host of other things that other cultures condone. I do not believe that any of this is wrong because of culture (we are justified in doing this because historically it is part of our culture) and more importantly because of evolution (we are justified in doing this because it promotes the survival of the species). Indeed murder may very well be culturally and evolutionarily advantageous. So, to repeat, how do you justify sticking to your guns? Relativists like yourself tend to reduce "sticking to your guns" to something like "yuck! I really dont like that". That isnt the basis for any kind of genuine criticism of moral and cultural relativism. We have argued before about the possibility of objective morality and you have made it very clear to me that you believe that it is all just the words we use, evolution and maybe a bit of sociology thrown in. For me that's not sticking to your guns against the pernicious threat of relativism, in fact it's the very epitome of relativism.

arthur, how in the name of whatever you hold holy, do you conclude that i am a relativist?!

feck's sake, even colr will rush to my defence / prosecution (as he might see it) on that one!

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

arthur, how in the name of whatever you hold holy, do you conclude that i am a relativist?! :yikes

feck's sake, even colr will rush to my defence / prosecution (as he might see it) on that one!

Just revisit any number of our previous jousts. You may well be a dogmatic, judgemental so and so but that doesn't preclude you from being a relativist. I am asking how you justify your position - explain to me how you propose to justify "sticking to your guns" on some of these issues. If I have to I will dredge up the actual threads but I have stated previously that morality has a genuinely objective aspect that is not explained through religion, evolution or sociology (I think I used the term humanism previously?) and you gave me it both barrels. As I say, you have strong views on right and wrong, no doubt, but I am interested in what you would say to someone from another culture who practiced something (say human sacrifice) that is wrong, other than simply asserting you don't agree?

[Brian]

I am a relativist. I think folk are well capable of making their own minds up. Let us see what's on offer and we'll all coalesce around a consensus of what does it for us.

[psychocandy]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i feel it was a fair comment, based on commentary i have read, and contingent upon the caveat that i hadn't read it.

put it another way; i understand that it is widely held to be as i described, but i cannot personally corroborate that.

how can one base a judgement on the critics? If that were the case the beatles may never have made it and westlife would be a band touring pubs in ireland.....or they'd have returned to their dayjobs

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

arthur, how in the name of whatever you hold holy, do you conclude that i am a relativist?! :yikes

feck's sake, even colr will rush to my defence / prosecution (as he might see it) on that one!

I couldn't resist dredging - try your wonderful claim at post 30 - >>here<<
- in response to my reasoned claim about the objectivity of morality you state, in effect "it's all just made up" - this is nihilism, relativism, whatever you want to call it. If it's all just made up then why in god's name would you want to stick to your guns unless simply defending your partial opinion??

[O'Driscoll]

I don't know if this counts as cultural relativism but once on a drunken night in Bathgate, I witnessed a Rangers fan from Harthill getting pelters from some Celtic fans (mates of mine). It went onto her religion and her village and really challenged the validity of her existence (if the spellings wrong - its the wine!) anyway I had a right go at them and chatted to her afterwards and told her that whilst I found the whole hun/proddie thing offensive she should never be ashamed of her own culture and should never be made to feel that way. I suppose what i'm getting at is that we are social animals and there are no absolutes, it is never simple and that is what makes culture itself happen, its that the more we interact, the more we understand, the more we understand, the less we hate.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll

its that the more we interact, the more we understand, the more we understand, the less we hate.

If you can understand and not hate the "we are the people", uebermenschen, herrenvolk, superiority complex of the Huns then you're a better man than me.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by arthurduncan

I couldn't resist dredging - try your wonderful claim at post 30 - >>here<<
- in response to my reasoned claim about the objectivity of morality you state, in effect "it's all just made up" - this is nihilism, relativism, whatever you want to call it. If it's all just made up then why in god's name would you want to stick to your guns unless simply defending your partial opinion??

because - and i've just found it described by a long dead russian in the book i commending to you, and who has articulated my feelings for me - pravda is simulataneously objective and subjective pravda.

i take it that's cleared things up or you

[Brian]

Originally Posted by arthurduncan

I couldn't resist dredging - try your wonderful claim at post 30 - >>here<<
- in response to my reasoned claim about the objectivity of morality you state, in effect "it's all just made up" - this is nihilism, relativism, whatever you want to call it. If it's all just made up then why in god's name would you want to stick to your guns unless simply defending your partial opinion??

If it's not just made up then what is the source of morality? (given that you excluded religion above, can't see where it's coming from ?)

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll

I don't know if this counts as cultural relativism but once on a drunken night in Bathgate, I witnessed a Rangers fan from Harthill getting pelters from some Celtic fans (mates of mine). It went onto her religion and her village and really challenged the validity of her existence (if the spellings wrong - its the wine!) anyway I had a right go at them and chatted to her afterwards and told her that whilst I found the whole hun/proddie thing offensive she should never be ashamed of her own culture and should never be made to feel that way. I suppose what i'm getting at is that we are social animals and there are no absolutes, it is never simple and that is what makes culture itself happen, its that the more we interact, the more we understand, the more we understand, the less we hate.

these are deep thoughts and no doubt true but the test of relativism would be say if the Pope decreed that all non-catholics could be tortured into converting or recanting or whatever (historically possible). Suppose your Harthill example took a turn for the worst (physically) and the protestant was "excommunicated" permanently - from the catholic perspective that would be their culture and justifed in those terms - but if you agree with me that that would be a morally repugnant act then we both need to explain why. Understanding other cultures is all well and good but what matters is when they cross the line.

p.s this has nothing to do with religion!!!

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll

the more we understand, the more we understand, the less we hate.

you been reading thomas a' kempis?

i wish i could believe this was true. not convinced though. it's not quite the same as understanding, but, for example, i believe history generally records that it's the most closely integrated societies that tend to explode in ethnic hatred.

[O'Driscoll]

Originally Posted by Brian

If you can understand and not hate the "we are the people", uebermenschen, herrenvolk, superiority complex of the Huns then you're a better man than me.

Yes I hear you but when someone is made a victim of bigots (whichever type) can you stand back and watch?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Brian

If it's not just made up then what is the source of morality? (given that you