Cultural Relativism and Scepticism

[Ivor the Engineer]

Where does religion end and culture begin?

What defines a cultural group? I.e., how many individuals are required and how isolated do they need to be to be classed as having a distinct culture?

Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?

Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

[chocolatepossum]

Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?


No!


Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

Yes!


I don't think the question of whether you should judge other cultures is distinct from what your morality is in general. IMO, if you say you think wife beating is wrong, but refuse to judge somebody from another culture, you don't really think wife beating is wrong.

I also really dislike the implication that cultures are morally homogenous entities. You have moral disagreements within cultures just as you have them between cultures. Just because someone at the end of my street thinks rape is OK doesn't stop me judging him for, and preventing him from doing it. I fail to see why it should be any different for someone in a another country.

[Matt the Poet]

Anybody has the right to comment on anything they like and judge it however they wish. It’s actions that matter.

It’s obvious to me that forced female circumcision is wrong, and equally that using the threat of violence or coercive educational practices to make it stop is also wrong.

This leads me to think that cultural relativism does considerably more good than harm – indeed it’s the only consistent solution I can see to the sort of quandary described above. The thing about relativism of any sort is that it cuts both ways. If it’s invalid to say that someone else’s culture is worse, then it’s also invalid to say that your own is better.

A woman with a relativist outlook, who understands that ‘culture’ is a flexible, contigent entity that only has meaning in relation to a particular observer, but happens to live in a culture that values her circumcision, will be in an excellent position to decide whether or not she wishes to go through with it (and she still might, it’s her choice). Certainly more so than a woman with an absolutist outlook who believes that her culture is an fixed, unchanging entity that she will be exiled from forever if she doesn’t obey its every precept.

[chocolatepossum]

Anybody has the right to comment on anything they like and judge it however they wish. It’s actions that matter.

It’s obvious to me that forced female circumcision is wrong, and equally that using the threat of violence or coercive educational practices to make it stop is also wrong.

This leads me to think that cultural relativism does considerably more good than harm – indeed it’s the only consistent solution I can see to the sort of quandary described above.

I don't see that cultural relativism is needed to resolve such a quandary. Maybe we have a conflict of definitions here, but I would think a cultural relativist would have ignore the rightness or wrongness of forced female circumcision if it takes place outside their culture. As far as I understand it, cultural relativism would say that female circumcision IS right within those cultures that generally practice it, and that it is immoral for any woman within those cultures to avoid it, or for any outsider to try to prevent it.

Also, just because I say that forced female circumcision is wrong, it doesn't follow that I think any means are justified to prevent it. There is such a thing as the cure being worse than the disease.

A woman with a relativist outlook, who understands that ‘culture’ is a flexible, contigent entity that only has meaning in relation to a particular observer, but happens to live in a culture that values her circumcision, will be in an excellent position to decide whether or not she wishes to go through with it (and she still might, it’s her choice). Certainly more so than a woman with an absolutist outlook who believes that her culture is an fixed, unchanging entity that she will be exiled from forever if she doesn’t obey its every precept.


I'm not sure I understand this bit. Let me clarify. When I say I object to cultural relativism, I am objecting to the idea that morality can only exist within a culture, and the (bizarre, in my view) conclusion that is drawn from this - that it is never acceptable to morally criticise actions that take place outside your culture.

I don't object to the idea that we should be careful not to needlessly trample over others' cultural traditions or assume that our cultural traditions are somehow objectively superior because we practice them.

[Wolfman]

I'm going to come in on the middle in this one. I think that an awful lot of what we consider to be "moral" or "immoral" is based on our current level of knowledge of the world around us, and how it works.

Take us backwards in time 3000 years, to a time when it was impossible to imagine things such as viruses and germs; and if possible to imagine them, certainly impossible to observe or prove. People were dying from all sorts of diseases, and there was a moral imperative to try to find a way to prevent more deaths.

Now, today we know that the theories they came up with -- blaming evil spirits, vengeful gods, imbalance of humors, etc. -- were wrong. But at the time, they were the best they could come up with. And they acted in a manner that they hoped/believed would stop those diseases.

So, offering human sacrifices to the gods, or ritually torturing people, or inflicting terrible punishments -- certainly immoral from our level of knowledge, but within the context of their understanding of the world, it was defensible, moral behavior. It was done with the intent of saving lives.

Now, yes, I know that this was also abused by people seeking to gain and hold power; but that was not always the case. There were many leaders -- political and religious -- who sincerely sought a 'cure' or 'solution' to the evils they saw around them; and who, based on the level of understanding they had about how the world worked, were completely defensible and moral actions.

QUESTION -- if there were a pantheon of various gods, and one of those gods got angry because someone in your village offended him, and he sent a plague upon your people...would it not be completely moral to inflict whatever punishment upon him was necessary to appease that god, and save everyone else? This was the basis upon which these "moral" decisions were made.

Now, we have the advantage today of having a much more complete (but by no means absolutely complete) understanding of the world around us, and therefore we evaluate the "morality" of our actions based on different standards and models.

What does this mean for more "primitive" societies, that still do things that we consider immoral?

Well, I like to think of it this way. Consider the possibility that 500 years in the future, consumption of animal flesh is almost universally considered immoral, and everyone is a vegetarian. If those people from the future came back to our time, and started preaching that everyone (except the minority of vegetarians) were primitive savages, and that we had to start acting and believing the same way they did, a few people would listen...but far more would rebel and reject any such idea. It is our right to kill and consume animal flesh, what right do they have to tell me what is right or wrong? They can live by their standards, and we can live by our standards!

The same holds true for other societies today. If we simply go blundering in, condemning them as "primitive", "savage", "immoral", etc., the only thing we will accomplish is to create greater alienation, and greater resistance to what we are trying to tell them.

A far more effective means would be through education; to build a cooperative relationship with them, and provide them with the information and resources that have led us to the conclusions that we have made.

"Morality" is subjective. As an atheist, I do not believe in moral absolutes; I believe that morality and moral values change according to knowledge, and according to circumstances. If I live in a modern city, in a comfortable middle-class life, it would be quite immoral for me to attack and kill my neighbors in order to get some food. If I lived in an isolated area, where competition was fierce, and me and my family were in danger of starvation, I'd argue that it would be arguably moral for me to attack and kill my neighbors in order to get some food.

Cannibalism is generally considered "immoral"; yet if I were in a situation where I had a choice between eating human flesh (of someone who's already dead) or dying of starvation, I would eat the human flesh, and would not consider it "immoral" for anyone else in a similar situation to do so, as repugnant as the idea seems to me at present.

This doesn't mean that we sit by quietly and ignore those things which we consider to be abusive; I firmly believe that we should communicate what we believe to others, and explain our reasons fully. But we should avoid doing so in a manner that only ensures greater resistance to the very values we are trying to encourage.

As I noted in a thread on a completely different topic earlier today, it is far from being a black-and-white issue. If you want clear, definitive answers as to what is "right" and what is "wrong", what is "moral" and what is "immoral", then join whatever religious organization happens to most closely match your chosen moral code, and rest happy in the assurance that you are right because god said so.

[plumjam]

Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

I think this question is an extremely interesting one.. and I can't yet say I'm sure what I think.
If you take something like mass human sacrifice in Aztec culture.. I think most people from most cultures would protest that that was morally wrong. But within the Aztec culture itself.. it seems to have been accepted (maybe I'm wrong there, perhaps there was huge grass roots resentment about it).

I think a problem with accepting relativism in this case is that you could then apply it to examples closer to home.
For example, it could be argued that Nazism represented a distinct (if short-lived) culture in European history. Would that then block an outsider from condemning and trying to prevent the holocaust?
The same with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Why should an outsider be allowed to judge that particular culture?

So, I think when it comes to extreme cases cultural relativism would best be avoided.
On the other hand, when it comes to pretty benign stuff like polygamy, polyandry, etiquette, distribution of wealth, recreational or spiritual drugs.. I think it's not really up to outsiders to come in, judge and condemn.

Interesting though.

[chocolatepossum]

On the other hand, when it comes to pretty benign stuff like polygamy, polyandry, etiquette, distribution of wealth, recreational or spiritual drugs.. I think it's not really up to outsiders to come in, judge and condemn.

I agree, up to a point, because (apart from in the case of wealth distribution) I don't consider these to be moral issues. The reason I don't object to arabs burping at the table (do they even do that?) is because I think it's okay to do that whatever your culture not because I'm granting them morally exempt status because of their ethnic background.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm going to come in on the middle in this one. I think that an awful lot of what we consider to be "moral" or "immoral" is based on our current level of knowledge of the world around us, and how it works.

Take us backwards in time 3000 years, to a time when it was impossible to imagine things such as viruses and germs; and if possible to imagine them, certainly impossible to observe or prove. People were dying from all sorts of diseases, and there was a moral imperative to try to find a way to prevent more deaths.

Now, today we know that the theories they came up with -- blaming evil spirits, vengeful gods, imbalance of humors, etc. -- were wrong. But at the time, they were the best they could come up with. And they acted in a manner that they hoped/believed would stop those diseases.

So, offering human sacrifices to the gods, or ritually torturing people, or inflicting terrible punishments -- certainly immoral from our level of knowledge, but within the context of their understanding of the world, it was defensible, moral behavior. It was done with the intent of saving lives.

Now, yes, I know that this was also abused by people seeking to gain and hold power; but that was not always the case. There were many leaders -- political and religious -- who sincerely sought a 'cure' or 'solution' to the evils they saw around them; and who, based on the level of understanding they had about how the world worked, were completely defensible and moral actions.

QUESTION -- if there were a pantheon of various gods, and one of those gods got angry because someone in your village offended him, and he sent a plague upon your people...would it not be completely moral to inflict whatever punishment upon him was necessary to appease that god, and save everyone else? This was the basis upon which these "moral" decisions were made.

Now, we have the advantage today of having a much more complete (but by no means absolutely complete) understanding of the world around us, and therefore we evaluate the "morality" of our actions based on different standards and models.

What does this mean for more "primitive" societies, that still do things that we consider immoral?

Well, I like to think of it this way. Consider the possibility that 500 years in the future, consumption of animal flesh is almost universally considered immoral, and everyone is a vegetarian. If those people from the future came back to our time, and started preaching that everyone (except the minority of vegetarians) were primitive savages, and that we had to start acting and believing the same way they did, a few people would listen...but far more would rebel and reject any such idea. It is our right to kill and consume animal flesh, what right do they have to tell me what is right or wrong? They can live by their standards, and we can live by our standards!

The same holds true for other societies today. If we simply go blundering in, condemning them as "primitive", "savage", "immoral", etc., the only thing we will accomplish is to create greater alienation, and greater resistance to what we are trying to tell them.

A far more effective means would be through education; to build a cooperative relationship with them, and provide them with the information and resources that have led us to the conclusions that we have made.

"Morality" is subjective. As an atheist, I do not believe in moral absolutes; I believe that morality and moral values change according to knowledge, and according to circumstances. If I live in a modern city, in a comfortable middle-class life, it would be quite immoral for me to attack and kill my neighbors in order to get some food. If I lived in an isolated area, where competition was fierce, and me and my family were in danger of starvation, I'd argue that it would be arguably moral for me to attack and kill my neighbors in order to get some food.

Cannibalism is generally considered "immoral"; yet if I were in a situation where I had a choice between eating human flesh (of someone who's already dead) or dying of starvation, I would eat the human flesh, and would not consider it "immoral" for anyone else in a similar situation to do so, as repugnant as the idea seems to me at present.

This doesn't mean that we sit by quietly and ignore those things which we consider to be abusive; I firmly believe that we should communicate what we believe to others, and explain our reasons fully. But we should avoid doing so in a manner that only ensures greater resistance to the very values we are trying to encourage.

As I noted in a thread on a completely different topic earlier today, it is far from being a black-and-white issue. If you want clear, definitive answers as to what is "right" and what is "wrong", what is "moral" and what is "immoral", then join whatever religious organization happens to most closely match your chosen moral code, and rest happy in the assurance that you are right because god said so.

See, I knew we would agree on something:)

How much difference is there between education and cultural imperialism? To me, both are trying to achieve a similar result, just in different ways.

[athon]

Where does religion end and culture begin?

Culture is a range of behaviours learned from the community in which you live. Therefore religion is a form of culture (culture, on the other hand, is not necessarily religious).

What defines a cultural group? I.e., how many individuals are required and how isolated do they need to be to be classed as having a distinct culture?

It depends on your context and the parameters you set. If it has to do with music culture, the context is a style of music being appreciated. Groups of different ethnicities would often share various cultures. We tend to speak of people being from a certain 'culture' without defining the context, and understand that to mean they share various beliefs, values and behaviours on account of coming from a general region.

Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?

All values are of equal weight. The conflicts come when two groups of different values come into contact, and the behaviours clash. Imagine a group that values family abve all else coming into contact with one that values personal merits above all else. The former gives a family member a job on account of being family, as this has the highest value. The other sees this as nepotism, as they feel that personal merit and suitability has greater value. This is a common form of value conflict.

Values (those things we hold in highest esteem, and base all decisions on) found cultural behaviours. It is subjective to therefore say which values are the most important, as they are significant to the individual. This extends into morality, as morals reflect those things we value the most.

Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

That's the million dollar question. Do they have the right to judge the values? No. Do they have the right to judge the behaviour that results? I think this is the really tricky question, and will continue to fuel debates from now into forever.

If another culture does not value the right for an individual within their community to decide their own values (such as their own right to choose their health and personal freedoms), does another culture have an obligation to step in and correct that? I believe, in my personal view, that they do. The most basic right we all have is to develop our own values freely and form behaviours to pursue them, only if it does not impede another's ability to do the same. I guess that's why I'm such a big fan of education - we all have the right to be educated to critically address our own personal cultures and values.

Athon

[Matt the Poet]

When I say I object to cultural relativism, I am objecting to the idea that morality can only exist within a culture, and the (bizarre, in my view) conclusion that is drawn from this - that it is never acceptable to morally criticise actions that take place outside your culture.

I wouldn’t call that cultural relativism. I would call it something like ‘Liberal Humanist Absolutism’ and consider it to be as bizarre as you do.

I don't object to the idea that we should be careful not to needlessly trample over others' cultural traditions or assume that our cultural traditions are somehow objectively superior because we practice them.

For me, cultural relativism is the repudiation of cultural absolutes – the assertion that the phrase ‘cultural practices’ refers to nothing but a nebulous set of actions, beliefs and preferences determined by the random flow of history, power and circumstance that could be abandoned or reversed at a moment’s notice, and in any case mean different things to different actors within a society.

That’s why I approve of the concept wholeheartedly – it forces individuals to be responsible for their actions. It actually allows you to judge a particular cultural practice without risking dubious generalisations of everything else that surrounds it, because it forces everyone concerned to consider that practice as a practice as opposed to a part of a culture.

Thecultural relativist's answer to people who perform surgery on other people’s genitals without their consent and then throw up their hands and say ‘but…it’s my culture!’ is 'I don't care about your culture, I'm judging your action by what appear to me to be rational moral standards - by which lights it was wrong'.

[athon]

How much difference is there between education and cultural imperialism? To me, both are trying to achieve a similar result, just in different ways.

Education isn't a single thing, but a means to an end. It is a tool which results in learning. If you limit that which is being taught, it remains education, yet the goal is questionable.

Athon

[athon]

When I say I object to cultural relativism, I am objecting to the idea that morality can only exist within a culture,

Um, so where does morality exist outside of a culture?

Athon

[Dancing David]

Where does religion end and culture begin?

They don't culture is a large rubric, religion is another large rubric. They are overlapping sets.


What defines a cultural group? I.e., how many individuals are required and how isolated do they need to be to be classed as having a distinct culture?

Culture is a set of norms in a group and the expression of media in a group, you can be a sub culture: born again, goths, D&Der. It is a recognition of something that looks like a consistent set of beliefs and behaviors.


Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?

The point of cultural relativism is to acknowledge that culture exists, just because white middle class people believe that being quiet in public places is normal does not mean that it is the best way, or because others believe you should sit on your porch whenever possible that that is the best way either.

Many value judgments are made solely on the basis of a societal norm (culture). Although culture is also the product of all the people in an area.


Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behavior is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behavior is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

That is the point to cultural relativism, having Walmarts everywhere is not better just because americans do it, eating locally grown food in season is not better just because italians do it. One should strive to understand where the judgment values come from.

[chocolatepossum]

Um, so where does morality exist outside of a culture?

Athon

Well, I would argue that morality can exist across cultures.

Oh, and leave my sentences alone please ;)

[athon]

Well, I would argue that morality can exist across cultures.

Isn't this a behaviour within a culture still? Even if it is shared by cultures, it exists in a cultural context. Saying 'across' cultures doesn't exclude it from that.

Oh, and leave my sentences alone please ;)

Heh, sorry. The second half was irrelevant to my point, so I did some grammatical surgery.

Athon

[Earthborn]

Where does religion end and culture begin?Religion is a part of a culture, so your question does not make sense. It is like asking "where does a cent end and an dollar begin?"

What defines a cultural group?Learnt behaviour patterns.

I.e., how many individuals are requiredOne or two.

... and how isolated do they need to be to be classed as having a distinct culture?They do not need to be isolated at all. Cultures can be part of larger cultures.

Here (http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm) is a nice cultural anthropology tutorial.

Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?That's not what cultural relativism is about, though many people seem to think it is. Cultural relativism means that everyone has a culture, and therefore every judgement you make of another's culture is made with your own cultural background.

I may not think your culture is very valuable, you may not think my culture is valuable. There are no objective criteria to decide who is right. Both may be judged right or wrong depending on one's viewpoint. That's what "relativism" means: it depends on one's point of view. It does not mean that according to some absolute ruler who stands above every culture, all cultures are to be judged of equal value, because that would be an absolutist idea, not a relativist one.

Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?People judge beliefs and behaviours within other cultures (or within their own) all the time. Whether the people with the judged culture accept those judgements depends on the people with the judged culture. Whether they "should" accept them implies a value judgement that can only be made within the reference frame of a culture, and therefore some people will think so and others will not.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

That is the point to cultural relativism, having Walmarts everywhere is not better just because americans do it, eating locally grown food in season is not better just because italians do it. One should strive to understand where the judgment values come from.

It appears that many cultures value stoic suffering (i.e. not crying while having pain inflicted) of their adolescents before they can be considered adults. Whether it's having part of their body covered in stinging ants, chopped off, a hole bored through, stretched, etc. the common theme is inflicting pain on the individual.

Surely all a cultural relativist could argue is that the pain be relieved (if it is not a valued part of the ritual) or the procedure be performed hygienically?

[Ivor the Engineer]

A critique of cultural relativism:

http://www.tcc.edu/faculty/webpages/JRMoore/general/curtler.pdf

Personally I would have thought most sceptics would be Objectivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism).

[JoeEllison]

Cultural relativism makes perfectly reasonable sense. Too bad the OP misrepresents it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Then please enlighten me, Joe!

[JoeEllison]

Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?

That doesn't sound anything like this:

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism)

Note the word "interpreted". Not "equated", "endorsed", or "exalted". Just "interpreted".

[Dancing David]

It appears that many cultures value stoic suffering (i.e. not crying while having pain inflicted) of their adolescents before they can be considered adults. Whether it's having part of their body covered in stinging ants, chopped off, a hole bored through, stretched, etc. the common theme is inflicting pain on the individual.

Surely all a cultural relativist could argue is that the pain be relieved (if it is not a valued part of the ritual) or the procedure be performed hygienically?

When I said value judgements I meant when a person of one culture judges another person of a different culture, they arethe ones who have to be aware of thier own values and culture first.

A cultural relativist would say that we should not label the practice 'barbaric','savage' or 'backwards'. That is what cultural relativism is about, it is foolish to call another culture backwards when you ignore the problems of your own culture. Like believing that there is no cultural bias in IQ testing.

Just because a culture supports genital mutilation does not mean it is not a way of subjugating women and eunechs(arrgh spelling).

Usually the infliction of pain is part of adulthood rituals (endurance of pain being an adult trait), which makes FGM very different or MGM for that matter.

[JoeEllison]

Is this another anti-circumcision woo thread in disguise?

[Ivor the Engineer]

When I said value judgements I meant when a person of one culture judges another person of a different culture, they arethe ones who have to be aware of thier own values and culture first.

I agree totally.

A cultural relativist would say that we should not label the practice 'barbaric','savage' or 'backwards'. That is what cultural relativism is about, it is foolish to call another culture backwards when you ignore the problems of your own culture. Like believing that there is no cultural bias in IQ testing.

I agree that it is unlikely to help change a cultural practice by calling it 'barbaric', 'savage' or 'backwards'. However, they may be accurate, if emotive, ways of describing a practice.

Just because a culture supports genital mutilation does not mean it is not a way of subjugating women and eunechs(arrgh spelling).

And why is subjugating women wrong?

Usually the infliction of pain is part of adulthood rituals (endurance of pain being an adult trait), which makes FGM very different or MGM for that matter.

Having just visited the excellent Natural history museum in New York I can confidently say that there are many cultures with practices that are performed on adolescents as a a way of "making" them into adults. These usually involve pain and/or body modification.

[Ivor the Engineer]

That doesn't sound anything like this:

Note the word "interpreted". Not "equated", "endorsed", or "exalted". Just "interpreted".

You are limiting the definition to that used by anthropologists for what they do. Being a cultural relativist means that you cannot, logically, pass judgment on another culture's practices, since a cultural relativist does not believe values can generally be applied across cultures, only within them.

Is this another anti-circumcision woo thread in disguise?

No, this is much more general. That is why I have not mentioned it specifically. It was used as a defence for religiously inspired infant male circumcision by someone who will remain nameless.

I think many people (rightly) dislike the idea of ethnocentrism and have latched on to the currently trendy cultural relativist ideology that, in my opinion, is just as bad.

The 'nice' way to change a culture is by exposing it to many others, education (biased or unbiased) and providing easy access to information (biased or unbiased) for individual members.

[JoeEllison]

You are limiting the definition to that used by anthropologists for what they do. Being a cultural relativist means that you cannot, logically, pass judgment on another culture's practices, since a cultural relativist does not believe values can generally be applied across cultures, only within them.



No, this is much more general. That is why I have not mentioned it specifically. It was used as a defence for religiously inspired infant male circumcision by someone who will remain nameless.

I think many people (rightly) dislike the idea of ethnocentrism and have latched on to the currently trendy cultural relativist ideology that, in my opinion, is just as bad.

The 'nice' way to change a culture is by exposing it to many others, education (biased or unbiased) and providing easy access to information (biased or unbiased) for individual members.
You haven't exactly impressed me with your "logic". It really seems to me that you don't really know exactly what you're talking about, but you don't care because you have an axe to grind... I guess against your parents, for your feelings of sexual inadequacy.

[Ivor the Engineer]

You haven't exactly impressed me with your "logic".

Would the 10's of thousands of lines of software and VHDL I've written for control and signal processing impress you? They involved quite a bit of 'logic' in their design.

It really seems to me that you don't really know exactly what you're talking about, but you don't care because you have an axe to grind...I guess against your parents, for your feelings of sexual inadequacy.

At least get it right Joe. Any feelings of inadequacy I may have likely comes from my st-st-stuttering. Please feel free to use that as a personal insult the next time you have nothing relevant to say about a topic I'm discussing.

[Koshy]

Hello all.

Having just completed a big course studying the merits of cultural relativism I think I can comment with some ability.

Cultural relativism is flawed. Why? Well, because what it actually is, not what "I think it is," as everyone keeps saying, who cares what you think, is just a self defeating position that says and can say nothing about anything.

Firstly, lets go over what cultural relativism actually means.

All societies have the right to decide what is correct within themselves, so in effect, anything a society decides on, so long as it doesnt cause the complete collapse/destruction of the said society is all very well and fantastic. This situation leads us to all sorts of undesirable things, but I wont list cause thatd just be trite.
There is no morality under cultural relativism, there are only moralities, all of which are equally valid within themselves.

Now that thats somewhat out of the way, lets look at the ramifications of C.R.

It is impossible, as someone keeps saying, to make a judgment on any other society through C.R. It is in fact impossible to make a judgment on your own society through C.R. If something were to appear morally wrong to you the individual and you protested you would in fact be going against what is right, what is really right, because C.R. says a society's morals are always right.

Under C.R. there is no such thing as progress, for instance, the majority of people today in America would probably agree that slavery is bad and that as a result of its abolishment we have progressed and become more moral. Can anyone spot the problem with this statement?
For us to have progressed there would have to be some removed ideal/goal to move toward/away from, there is none under C.R., slavery is therefore perfectly and totally acceptable, so long as most people think so and the abolishment of the institution of slavery couldnt be interpreted as progress or regression.

Anddddd, before I start to go on for too long, cause I know people like to ignore long posts, Ill just leave it at that for now and pose this question, which hopefully will spawn some interesting conversation.

Lets ask the question, since C.R. rules out universals, are there any moral ideas that arnt universal?

Hopefully this is all easily understood. And yes, all examples clearly and easily pertain to the matter at hand.

Ahh yes ETA: An example for the existence of morality outside of a culture. If you live in a culture totally ignorant of lets say a genocide going on in your neighboring country. You have no idea its going on, nor does anyone else that lives in your little country. Does the fact that youre ignorant of it negate its moral status? Id say that normally no, its not thought that because I dont know something bad or good is happening its no longer bad or good, it still is, I just dont know about it.

[athon]

Firstly, lets go over what cultural relativism actually means.

Funny that you say this, and then don't provide a comprehensive definition. You go on a rant about what it could lead to, which is based on flawed assumptions, but give no definition.

All societies have the right to decide what is correct within themselves, so in effect, anything a society decides on, so long as it doesnt cause the complete collapse/destruction of the said society is all very well and fantastic.

Firstly, what do you mean by 'correct'? Every society has the right to determine what values are important to them, and morality is a set of behaviours which defend these values.

This situation leads us to all sorts of undesirable things, but I wont list cause thatd just be trite.

No, please - your argument is weaker without them. Dare to be 'trite'.

There is no morality under cultural relativism, there are only moralities, all of which are equally valid within themselves.

Semantics. Meaningless.

It is impossible, as someone keeps saying, to make a judgment on any other society through C.R. It is in fact impossible to make a judgment on your own society through C.R. If something were to appear morally wrong to you the individual and you protested you would in fact be going against what is right, what is really right, because C.R. says a society's morals are always right.

C.R. says a society's morals are based on subjective values. There is no objective 'right'.

Under C.R. there is no such thing as progress, for instance, the majority of people today in America would probably agree that slavery is bad and that as a result of its abolishment we have progressed and become more moral. Can anyone spot the problem with this statement?

Nope. The problem was far richer than you're implying. Slavery was abolished because there were numerous communities with competing values. The communities overlapped, each impinging on one another. When two communities with competing values have behaviours affecting those values (or the denial of them), that is when conflict arises. Each community struggles with the other in defending their value by attempting to subvert the behaviour of the other community. The stronger community will continue to exhibit dominating behaviour over the other, forcing them to change their values or continue to fight in defense of them.

For us to have progressed there would have to be some removed ideal/goal to move toward/away from, there is none under C.R., slavery is therefore perfectly and totally acceptable, so long as most people think so and the abolishment of the institution of slavery couldnt be interpreted as progress or regression.

I'm amazed by the simplicity of your view. There is no single community within a population. And each community may have slightly different values commanding different behaviours, encoded as 'morality'. Where these moral behaviours impact on another's values, the stronger of the communities will continue to practice those behaviours. This won't necessarily change one's morals to suit the dominating population, but values can and do often change under such stresses.

Lets ask the question, since C.R. rules out universals, are there any moral ideas that arnt universal?

Did you mean 'are' or 'aren't'? There are plenty of examples of morals which are shared by most cultures, and plenty of examples of morals which are demonstrated by only a few. What's your point?

Ahh yes ETA: An example for the existence of morality outside of a culture. If you live in a culture totally ignorant of lets say a genocide going on in your neighboring country. You have no idea its going on, nor does anyone else that lives in your little country. Does the fact that youre ignorant of it negate its moral status?

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, can it still be said to be making a sound?

Id say that normally no, its not thought that because I dont know something bad or good is happening its no longer bad or good, it still is, I just dont know about it.

Huh?

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

What I find incompatible about cultural relativism and scepticism is the former precludes action based on judgments from the latter. For example:

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/print/misc/angola_20050708.shtml

July 2005

Angolan Witchcraft

The BBC has tracked down a woman in the southern African country of Angola who says she is the mother of the girl in the so-called "witch trial". Last week two women and a man were jailed on charges of child cruelty.

They were arrested after an eight year old girl from Angola was found in a stairwell in Hackney. She had been tortured, beaten and cut - chilli pepper was rubbed in her eyes. She was stuffed into a laundry bag ready to be thrown in a river. The reason - the people she was living with, claim she was possessed - they believed she was a witch. The girl is currently in foster care here in the UK. The court was told she was an orphan. Angus Stickler went to Angola to try and contact the girl's family - and to try and gain some insight into these belief systems - now imported to the UK.

Most people I would be happy to know would have no problem condemning this behaviour in any culture as unacceptable. But how could a cultural relativist?

[Darat]

Not a good example since such behaviour is also condemned in Angola and is against Angolan law.

But to try and address your point anyway. How do you, using the process of skepticism, conclude that such behaviour is wrong/bad/incorrect/shouldn't happen?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not a good example since such behaviour is also condemned in Angola and is against Angolan law.

What does Angolan law have to do with cultural beliefs of an isolated group in the UK?

But to try and address your point anyway. How do you, using the process of skepticism, conclude that such behaviour is wrong/bad/incorrect/shouldn't happen?

Scepticism is involved in my reasoning of the girl not being possessed. Using scepticism gives me grounds to say the belief in possession by evil spirits is incorrect, thus behaviour motivated by this belief is likely to be incorrect or inappropriate.

[Darat]

What does Angolan law have to do with cultural beliefs of an isolated group in the UK?

Because that particular part of that culture is meant to have been "imported" from Angola.


Scepticism is involved in my reasoning of the girl not being possessed. Using scepticism gives me grounds to say the belief in possession by evil spirits is incorrect, thus behaviour motivated by this belief is likely to be incorrect or inappropriate.

So how is that in conflict with cultural relativism?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because that particular part of that culture is meant to have been "imported" from Angola.

meant to? According to who? Them or you? As a cultural relativist all you could do is observe what the group in question was doing and find out what they believe.

But to avoid this distraction, let's say they were from Zimbabwe.

So how is that in conflict with cultural relativism?

Because cultural relativism excludes you using knowledge unknown to the members of a particular culture when forming judgments of their behaviour.

[Darat]

...snip...

Because cultural relativism excludes you using knowledge unknown to the members of a particular culture when forming judgments of their behaviour.

No it doesn't. Where on earth did you get this idea from?

At "worse" you could say it would say that when trying to understand how a particular culture works you should not impose your own cultural values on that culture.

So for instance in this case you wouldn't say when describing their culture:

"They believe in witchcraft, which being a primitive belief results in child abuse"

but

"Their belief in witchcraft results in behaviour such as X"

"Cultural relativism" isn't a belief system or a system for assigning a "value" to a culture; it's a tool to try and ensure that anthropologists and the like study a culture objectively. It is very much akin to the process of skepticism in that it tries to remove the subjective values any particular culture has when describing and understanding another.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

"Cultural relativism" isn't a belief system or a system for assigning a "value" to a culture; it's a tool to try and ensure that anthropologists and the like study a culture objectively. It is very much akin to the process of skepticism in that it tries to remove the subjective values any particular culture has when describing and understanding another.

Cultural relativism is both a tool and a belief system. Anthropologists use it as a tool, though I have my doubts about how successfully any individual over the age of 5 or 6 could avoid having their observations tained by their values when in an alien culture. Then you have the whole problem of the effect of the observation on the culture, but that's a whole different thread.

Cultural relativism as a belief system is trendy at the moment and is often used to defend (or at least prevent analysis of) the inflicting all kinds of suffering and oppression.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-01-00.htm

Cultural relativism basics

Cultural relativism holds that "good" means what is "socially approved" by the majority in a given culture. Infanticide, for example, isn't good or bad objectively; rather it's good in a society that approves of it, but bad in one that disapproves of it.

Cultural relativists see morality as a product of culture. They think that societies disagree widely about morality, and that we have no clear way to resolve the differences. They conclude that there are no objective values. Cultural relativists view themselves as tolerant; they see other cultures, not as "wrong," but as "different."

[Darat]

...snip...

Cultural relativism as a belief system is trendy at the moment and is often used to defend (or at least prevent analysis of) the inflicting all kinds of suffering and oppression.

...snip...

Examples please.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The lack of criticism of nations governed by Islamic law.

[Darat]

The lack of criticism of nations governed by Islamic law.


http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

Two white crows.

(I make no claims about those sites and I present them merely to demonstrate white crows do exist.)

[Dancing David]

I agree totally.



I agree that it is unlikely to help change a cultural practice by calling it 'barbaric', 'savage' or 'backwards'. However, they may be accurate, if emotive, ways of describing a practice.



And why is subjugating women wrong?

I would say it is a human rights issue which is of course a societal or cultural value, as well as a personal one.




Having just visited the excellent Natural history museum in New York I can confidently say that there are many cultures with practices that are performed on adolescents as a a way of "making" them into adults. These usually involve pain and/or body modification.

I am not sure that rituals that are rights of passage are 'making' someone into something. But it is most likely a language usage thing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I did not say there is no criticism, just a lack of it. Another example would be the Catholic Churches stance on contraception given the HIV epidemic. How many people has the Pope effectively condemned to a horrible, untimely death with his irrational morality? How many politicians in a position to make a difference have criticized him for it?

It is generally seen as taboo to be criticizing a culture for their behaviour based on beliefs; as though you are unfairly picking on them.

Straightforward arguments based on the minimization of individual suffering are not valid to a cultural relativist (or, more likely, someone using this philosophy in a last ditch attempt to defend a cruel or unjust practice).

[Darat]

I did not say there is no criticism, just a lack of it.


Well OK then but what is a "lack"? And you need to show that this "lack" is because of "cultural relativism".




Another example would be the Catholic Churches stance on contraception given the HIV epidemic. How many people has the Pope effectively condemned to a horrible, untimely death with his irrational morality? How many politicians in a position to make a difference have criticized him for it?



And again if this is the case you need to show that the reason for this is cultural relativism.


It is generally seen as taboo to be criticizing a culture for their behaviour based on beliefs; as though you are unfairly picking on them.


Well I would disagree - I see no hesitation to criticise "them" (i.e. other cultures) based on their beliefs. As an example look at the USA based criticism of France over the last few years.

And again even if it is a "taboo" what has that got to do with "cultural relativism" - some would claim it's due to that old strawman of "political correctness".



Straightforward arguments based on the minimization of individual suffering are not valid to a cultural relativist (or, more likely, someone using this philosophy in a last ditch attempt to defend a cruel or unjust practice).

Sorry Ivor but this is just rubbish and has nothing to do with cultural relativism. I'm not sure where you have been exposed to cultural relativism but you really do seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what it is.

As an example I use the tools of cultural relativism (and if you like the "beliefs" that you quoted that go along with it) yet I will still put forward an argument that certain practices should be ended no matter what the justification from within their culture (which is what cultural relativism is about) is and I will base my arguments based on my personal principles and what I believe are objective facts.

Cultural relativism does not mean you do not or cannot criticise other cultures nor that all cultures are the same and are equally "good" or "bad" as one another. It just recognises that to understand a culture you need to try and impose as few of your own cultural values on your understanding of that culture.

[Dancing David]

You are limiting the definition to that used by anthropologists for what they do. Being a cultural relativist means that you cannot, logically, pass judgment on another culture's practices, since a cultural relativist does not believe values can generally be applied across cultures, only within them.

Well, I would argue that you can still pass judgment, you are just supposed to be aware of your bias in doing so, that is why I mentioned WalMarts and seasonal food. The argument then can be about the benefits of economies of scale (and the detriments as well) or the benefits and detriments of seasonal food, as opposed to 'our way is best'.

Here is another example 'sagging', the wearing of pants just above the genitals or mons, so loose that they often need to be held up by the hands. (A common issue in US schools) If at work (in a middle school) I just say "That is disgust" then I get no where, and actually I really don't care. However besides being parts of african american culture it is part of gang culture. So the argument, "You have to do it because the rules say so." is about the best that you can get. the second issue is that is also is part of young men exposing their genitals in the school, which is not a good thing. That really happens where they will grab their unit and make some offensive comment and gesture with it. Again a social more is violated.

So to understand the roots of why you do something:
1.The prevention of gang 'representing'. (As if)
2.The prevention of sexual harassment.

goes a whole lot farther than
That is reprehensible, young men just shouldn't do that or it is immoral.



No, this is much more general. That is why I have not mentioned it specifically. It was used as a defence for religiously inspired infant male circumcision by someone who will remain nameless.

I was just bringing up FGM and castration as body modification that was not done as a rite of passage, unlike tooth knocking, scarification and penis splitting.


I think many people (rightly) dislike the idea of ethnocentrism and have latched on to the currently trendy cultural relativist ideology that, in my opinion, is just as bad.

that is a very valid point, the thing that many people come up against however is that cultural values that they accept can become criminalized or prejudicial. that is the pointy that anthropologists try to make. Not that torture is acceptable because some cultures do it. Although I think the ritual torture of the President might not be bad (a not uncommon leadership ritual). ;)


The 'nice' way to change a culture is by exposing it to many others, education (biased or unbiased) and providing easy access to information (biased or unbiased) for individual members.

And to make sure you understand what you are doing and why.

[Dancing David]

You haven't exactly impressed me with your "logic". It really seems to me that you don't really know exactly what you're talking about, but you don't care because you have an axe to grind... I guess against your parents, for your feelings of sexual inadequacy.

Wow, that really is a cogent argument, based upon critical thought and careful use of evidence. I stand in awe of your incredible powers of reasoning and scepticism.

I think maybe a language award is in order.

[Dancing David]

Hello all.

Having just completed a big course studying the merits of cultural relativism I think I can comment with some ability.

Cultural relativism is flawed. Why? Well, because what it actually is, not what "I think it is," as everyone keeps saying, who cares what you think, is just a self defeating position that says and can say nothing about anything.

Firstly, lets go over what cultural relativism actually means.

All societies have the right to decide what is correct within themselves, so in effect, anything a society decides on, so long as it doesnt cause the complete collapse/destruction of the said society is all very well and fantastic. This situation leads us to all sorts of undesirable things, but I wont list cause thatd just be trite.
There is no morality under cultural relativism, there are only moralities, all of which are equally valid within themselves.

Now that thats somewhat out of the way, lets look at the ramifications of C.R.

It is impossible, as someone keeps saying, to make a judgment on any other society through C.R. It is in fact impossible to make a judgment on your own society through C.R. If something were to appear morally wrong to you the individual and you protested you would in fact be going against what is right, what is really right, because C.R. says a society's morals are always right.

Under C.R. there is no such thing as progress, for instance, the majority of people today in America would probably agree that slavery is bad and that as a result of its abolishment we have progressed and become more moral. Can anyone spot the problem with this statement?
For us to have progressed there would have to be some removed ideal/goal to move toward/away from, there is none under C.R., slavery is therefore perfectly and totally acceptable, so long as most people think so and the abolishment of the institution of slavery couldnt be interpreted as progress or regression.

Anddddd, before I start to go on for too long, cause I know people like to ignore long posts, Ill just leave it at that for now and pose this question, which hopefully will spawn some interesting conversation.

Lets ask the question, since C.R. rules out universals, are there any moral ideas that arnt universal?

Hopefully this is all easily understood. And yes, all examples clearly and easily pertain to the matter at hand.

Ahh yes ETA: An example for the existence of morality outside of a culture. If you live in a culture totally ignorant of lets say a genocide going on in your neighboring country. You have no idea its going on, nor does anyone else that lives in your little country. Does the fact that youre ignorant of it negate its moral status? Id say that normally no, its not thought that because I dont know something bad or good is happening its no longer bad or good, it still is, I just dont know about it.

Gee, I was raised by an anthroplogist around anthropologists and minored in anthropology. I don't seem to recall all this moral relativism being part of it.

What class did you take?

[Dancing David]

What I find incompatible about cultural relativism and scepticism is the former precludes action based on judgments from the latter. For example:

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/print/misc/angola_20050708.shtml



Most people I would be happy to know would have no problem condemning this behaviour in any culture as unacceptable. But how could a cultural relativist?

Killing children because they have a mental illness or developmental disability is a bad thing?

It is a human rights issue.

there are people who abuse the notion of cultural relativism, I imagine that murder is against the law in Angola.

[Dancing David]

What does Angolan law have to do with cultural beliefs of an isolated group in the UK?



Scepticism is involved in my reasoning of the girl not being possessed. Using scepticism gives me grounds to say the belief in possession by evil spirits is incorrect, thus behaviour motivated by this belief is likely to be incorrect or inappropriate.

The point that some people make is overblown, you can still judge the acts of others based upon a set of beliefs, it is important to know what beliefs you are basing that judgment on.

It is wrong to kill children with a mental illness is different than "We must civilize them and make them Christians."

[Morrigan]

You haven't exactly impressed me with your "logic". It really seems to me that you don't really know exactly what you're talking about, but you don't care because you have an axe to grind... I guess against your parents, for your feelings of sexual inadequacy.
Holy unsubtle ad hominem, Batman!

[Dancing David]

The lack of criticism of nations governed by Islamic law.


Sorry Ivor that is silly. If you can watch FOX News or MSNBC you may find there is much discussion of this as there also is on many other less whacked out sources. NPR, PBS and many moderate websites and programs discuss this constantly

It also applies to the bogus civil liberty violations of the Bush administration.

On the flip side we have dog fighting the n-words and the b-words debates as well. As I recall the UK still has detention without evidence and extreme secrecy laws.

[Dancing David]

I did not say there is no criticism, just a lack of it. Another example would be the Catholic Churches stance on contraception given the HIV epidemic. How many people has the Pope effectively condemned to a horrible, untimely death with his irrational morality? How many politicians in a position to make a difference have criticized him for it?

It is generally seen as taboo to be criticizing a culture for their behaviour based on beliefs; as though you are unfairly picking on them.

Straightforward arguments based on the minimization of individual suffering are not valid to a cultural relativist (or, more likely, someone using this philosophy in a last ditch attempt to defend a cruel or unjust practice).


I sure don't see the lack, what is your data base?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Sorry Ivor but this is just rubbish and has nothing to do with cultural relativism. I'm not sure where you have been exposed to cultural relativism but you really do seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what it is.

I'm aware of two very distinct uses of the term: The first describes a process or tool used by anthropologists which is, IMO, sensible. The second describes a belief that a judgment made about others' cultural practices by outsiders has no validity. It is this second use that I disagree with.

As an example I use the tools of cultural relativism (and if you like the "beliefs" that you quoted that go along with it) yet I will still put forward an argument that certain practices should be ended no matter what the justification from within their culture (which is what cultural relativism is about) is and I will base my arguments based on my personal principles and what I believe are objective facts.

Then you are an Objectivist.

Cultural relativism does not mean you do not or cannot criticize other cultures nor that all cultures are the same and are equally "good" or "bad" as one another. It just recognizes that to understand a culture you need to try and impose as few of your own cultural values on your understanding of that culture.

Like I said above, if you are using the term to describe the process of how you understand a culture then I agree it is a perfectly sensible approach.

However, it is also used as an argument to deny that there are any valid objective judgments possible of a culture's practices by outsiders.

[Darat]

I'm aware of two very distinct uses of the term: The first describes a process or tool used by anthropologists which is, IMO, sensible. The second describes a belief that a judgment made about others' cultural practices by outsiders has no validity. It is this second use that I disagree with.



What I would suggest then is that the second usage is not cultural relativism but someone creating a strawman and saying it is "cultural relativism" and when you see someone doing it call them out.



Then you are an Objectivist.



Actually I'm not - I was just using it in its everyday usage e.g. "accessible and verifiable in principle to everyone" rather than its more philosophical meaning.


Like I said above, if you are using the term to describe the process of how you understand a culture then I agree it is a perfectly sensible approach.

However, it is also used as an argument to deny that there are any valid objective judgments possible of a culture's practices by outsiders.

Well "cultural relativism" can hardly be held responsible if someone is making things up about it.

[JoeEllison]

Holy unsubtle ad hominem, Batman!

Not subtle by intent, and not exactly an ad hom either.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I sure don't see the lack, what is your data base?

Well I've searched both my memory and the internet and I can't find any references to a politician criticizing the pope (this one or the last one) for his refusal to endorse condom use for HIV prevention.

Though perhaps my memory or google-fu is failing me.

[chocolatepossum]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer
I'm aware of two very distinct uses of the term: The first describes a process or tool used by anthropologists which is, IMO, sensible. The second describes a belief that a judgment made about others' cultural practices by outsiders has no validity. It is this second use that I disagree with.

What I would suggest then is that the second usage is not cultural relativism but someone creating a strawman and saying it is "cultural relativism" and when you see someone doing it call them out.


Are you sure they aren't two related but distinct uses of the term? I don't think the second use is a strawman - it's not a caricature of the first position that is being used to attack it, but a related position that has come (perhaps out of confusion) to be called the same thing.

What would you call the position described by the second usage? I'm not sure I would want to call it moral relativism, since that can seem too imprecise. Do not some moral relativists hold that all moral judgements made on other people are invalid, not just those made between cultures?

[Dancing David]

Well I've searched both my memory and the internet and I can't find any references to a politician criticizing the pope (this one or the last one) for his refusal to endorse condom use for HIV prevention.

Though perhaps my memory or google-fu is failing me.

You know you also said people?

Here are some links that might indicate comments.
:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pope+condoms

[Darat]

...snip...

What would you call the position described by the second usage? I'm not sure I would want to call it moral relativism, since that can seem too imprecise. Do not some moral relativists hold that all moral judgements made on other people are invalid, not just those made between cultures?

"Cultural equivalencism"? :)

[chocolatepossum]

This area seems to be plagued with quite a few overlapping/ misunderstood terms. I just looked up moral relativism on wikipedia, and it turns out I'm a moral relativist apparently.

A subjectivist, yes, but a relativist ? :mad:

[chocolatepossum]

"Cultural equivalencism"?

That's actually quite a good term. I may pretend I made that up.

[Darat]

That's actually quite a good term. I may pretend I made that up.

And it's even got a "citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_equivalencism)" ;)

[chocolatepossum]

And it's even got a "citation"

Yeah, I wrote that earlier, right after I invented the term.

[Koshy]

1. Funny that you say this, and then don't provide a comprehensive definition. You go on a rant about what it could lead to, which is based on flawed assumptions, but give no definition.

2. Firstly, what do you mean by 'correct'? Every society has the right to determine what values are important to them, and morality is a set of behaviours which defend these values.

3. No, please - your argument is weaker without them. Dare to be 'trite'.

4. Semantics. Meaningless.

5.C.R. says a society's morals are based on subjective values. There is no objective 'right'.

6.Nope. The problem was far richer than you're implying. Slavery was abolished because there were numerous communities with competing values. The communities overlapped, each impinging on one another. When two communities with competing values have behaviours affecting those values (or the denial of them), that is when conflict arises. Each community struggles with the other in defending their value by attempting to subvert the behaviour of the other community. The stronger community will continue to exhibit dominating behaviour over the other, forcing them to change their values or continue to fight in defense of them.

7.I'm amazed by the simplicity of your view. There is no single community within a population. And each community may have slightly different values commanding different behaviours, encoded as 'morality'. Where these moral behaviours impact on another's values, the stronger of the communities will continue to practice those behaviours. This won't necessarily change one's morals to suit the dominating population, but values can and do often change under such stresses.

8.Did you mean 'are' or 'aren't'? There are plenty of examples of morals which are shared by most cultures, and plenty of examples of morals which are demonstrated by only a few. What's your point?

9.If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, can it still be said to be making a sound?

10.Huh?

Athon

(To Dancing David: Practical argumentation, which analyzes a belief in things that aught not be believed in and the structures surrounding them.
And Elements of Moral Philosophy, which examines... the elements of moral philosophy :p.)

I have three doctorates of philosophy who disagree with you, and I tend to side with what Ive been told by them, aside from being more educated they seem to be more openminded/truthminded.

1. I defined what cultural relativism is. A system under which there is no morality, only what a particular society thinks.

2. Every society has the right to..... wait a minute, did you just say something about societies having a universal right? Not very smart.

3. Yes, you who contradict yourself within your posts, good point.

4. How exactly is that meaningless? Meaningless enough to warrant you whining about it. There is no morality under Cultural Relativism. There are only moralities, which working on that same system state that your moral affiliation is a result of your geographic location, but thats a bit beside the point.

5. No youre wrong. C.R. says all morality is right within the particular society that it belongs to, so long as the majority agrees.

6. That doesnt address the issue now does it? Were not a better society since slavery has been abolished, we cant be, because to say were better is to say that weve moved toward or away from an objective moral state. What you responded with doesnt really apply to anything, but is true within itself.

7. You seperated 6-7, when theyre on the same issue. You didnt really say anything, but Ill try to give you something back. So then youre saying that might makes right? If the south had won the war slavery would be correct then.

8. List some. This question beats into customary differences rather than morality differences, hence why I asked it, it wasnt just for fun ;).

9. If a tree falls on your car while noone else is around, is your insurance agent still going to get a call? Doesnt really apply to the example. Asking if morality exists without people is like asking how you would feel if youde been aborted, I suspect you wouldnt care. However, there are certain things that take a moral stance regardless of an individual's or groups awareness of them.

10. Yes, separate things that go together then feign ignorance, good plan. 9-10 go together.

ETA A couple things. How should a cultural relativist person or group treat an intolerant person or group?
Also this is an interesting situation. Eskimos leave children out on the ice that have any deformity or are unlikely to survive/be a burden to the community. Whats is the moral impact of this situation?

[Beth]

ETA A couple things. How should a cultural relativist person or group treat an intolerant person or group? With tolerance. To be intolerant of them is to adopt their value system. To be tolerant is to demonstrate the value of tolerance.

Also this is an interesting situation. Eskimos leave children out on the ice that have any deformity or are unlikely to survive/be a burden to the community. Whats is the moral impact of this situation?

It is an interesting question. For a community that teeters on the brink of survival, caring for individuals who are unable to care for themselves may be an unaffordable luxury. Perhaps those eskimo tribes who did not rid themselves of burdensome individuals ended up dying out as a result and those communities that were willing to adopt such a harsh practice could survive in that harsh environment.

I think the moral impact would be for the society to place a greater value on the survival of the tribe than the survival of individuals in that tribe.

[athon]

I have three doctorates of philosophy who disagree with you, and I tend to side with what Ive been told by them, aside from being more educated they seem to be more openminded/truthminded.

You don't seem to have really paid much attention to these PhDs then, going on what you've said in your post. First of all, confusing cultural relativism with moral relativism creates a number of problems. They aren't the one and the same (here's a hint - J.P. Sartre is a great place to start in order to consider it). But lets see what you said and address some points regardless...

1. I defined what cultural relativism is. A system under which there is no morality, only what a particular society thinks.

Then maybe it's your communication which is lacking, because this is a poor definition. Firstly, it isn't a 'system' of anything, but a principle or an approach. Secondly it doesn't say that there is no morality, but that morality must always be considered in terms of a culture's values and experiences.

2. Every society has the right to..... wait a minute, did you just say something about societies having a universal right? Not very smart.

Explain why it's 'not very smart'.

3. Yes, you who contradict yourself within your posts, good point.

So, no examples? Fine.

Point out where I contradicted myself.

[quotre]4. How exactly is that meaningless? Meaningless enough to warrant you whining about it. There is no morality under Cultural Relativism. There are only moralities, which working on that same system state that your moral affiliation is a result of your geographic location, but thats a bit beside the point.[/quote]

Correction - there is no objective standard against which we can compare morals in terms of right and wrong. You're playing semantics on the terms 'morality' and 'moralities', it seems.

5. No youre wrong. C.R. says all morality is right within the particular society that it belongs to, so long as the majority agrees.

Nope. There is no objective standard of right and wrong. Look up the word objective if you don't understand it. It says that in order to assess the moral practices of a community, it must be done in relation to their values and their experiences, not in relation to a universal right/wrong.

6. That doesnt address the issue now does it? Were not a better society since slavery has been abolished, we cant be, because to say were better is to say that weve moved toward or away from an objective moral state. What you responded with doesnt really apply to anything, but is true within itself.

You said:
Under C.R. there is no such thing as progress,

What does this mean? That nothing would progress if cultures were relative? Cultural Relativism isn't a system one applies, but a description based on an attempt to understand cultures as being subjective behaviour.

for instance, the majority of people today in America would probably agree that slavery is bad and that as a result of its abolishment we have progressed and become more moral.

Yes, most Americans would say that, in context with their communnities own values. This keeps missing you.

7. You seperated 6-7, when theyre on the same issue. You didnt really say anything, but Ill try to give you something back. So then youre saying that might makes right? If the south had won the war slavery would be correct then.

Again you keep bringing this 'right' into it. Drop it - the entire point of relative morality is that there is no universal right, and that 'right' only makes sense in the context of a community's own values. That doesn't mean that right doesn't exist - it means it needs a context.

As for implying I'm saying 'might is right', I'm saying might results in dominance, to which submissive cultures have to adapt.

8. List some. This question beats into customary differences rather than morality differences, hence why I asked it, it wasnt just for fun ;).

Again, you didn't clarify. Go back and read my questions and then clarify your point. I'll then gladly list examples of both.

9. If a tree falls on your car while noone else is around, is your insurance agent still going to get a call? Doesnt really apply to the example. Asking if morality exists without people is like asking how you would feel if youde been aborted, I suspect you wouldnt care. However, there are certain things that take a moral stance regardless of an individual's or groups awareness of them.

Again, let's look at what you said:

If you live in a culture totally ignorant of lets say a genocide going on in your neighboring country. You have no idea its going on, nor does anyone else that lives in your little country. Does the fact that youre ignorant of it negate its moral status?

What 'moral status'? Is it immoral to those being killed? I assume so. Is it immoral behaviour to the neighbours? If it contradicts their morals. You seem to still have some view of objective morality. Morality is a subjective evaluation of a set of behaviours. If I kill somebody, and you don't know it, to you that behaviour I exhibited would still be immoral, regardless of whether you know it or not.

ETA A couple things. How should a cultural relativist person or group treat an intolerant person or group?

Intolerant of what? If that group is intolerant of the same things the individual in question is intolerant of, then they would agree. If not, they'd conflict. What does this have to do with anything? C.R. doesn't mean you have no morals or culture - it means in order to assess a culture, it must be done independent of your own cultural background. M.R., which is slightly different, says morals aren't objective.

How do you not get that?

Also this is an interesting situation. Eskimos leave children out on the ice that have any deformity or are unlikely to survive/be a burden to the community. Whats is the moral impact of this situation?

Christ, you simply don't get it. In their own morals, it is acceptable. In my own morals, it is not. Both relate to our own values - I see a value in the lives of children with disabilities. In their culture, that value doesn't exist.

If you still don't get that, I have to ask you - against what universal law do you judge a value?

Athon

[Koshy]

I paid quite a bit of attention to them thankyou very much. Cultural relativism is what? Analyzing cultural morality via practices, history, etc. Moral Relativism is what? Analyzing morality culturally via practices, history, etc. Yes, nice distinction.

I didnt use a number system, because your post doesnt really say anything anyway, so hopefully youle be able to tell what parts of your rambling Im responding to.

Saying something isnt a system, hmm. Scientific method is a system of analyzing.... Scientific method is a principle of approaching.... Yes, another nice distinction. Yes, this was an example, if you cant understand it ponder it for a moment.
It does in fact say there is no morality. There can be no morality. Morality cannot exist as a singular entity within cultural relativism, there can only be moralities. If there was morality then it would be a singular entity, and thus universal now wouldnt it.
Ex. "There is no truth." Whats wrong with it?

"Explain whats not very smart." Really? You cant see how saying that societies have a universal right to decide for themselves contradicts cultural relativism? Much less how it contradicts what you yourself said, which yes it is "might makes right", meaning that a larger society can take that "right that every society has" and just toss it in the trash.


Why are you incapable of understanding this. If the majority of a society thinks something is right, as morality is only a function of society, under cultural relativism it IS RIGHT, absolutely, within that society. What are you bringing in objective moral standards for? Fun?

And no no no no. A society cannot progress. Progress implies direction, how can you have a direction if there is no objective standard? You say in context to that society's morals, too bad C.R. says that slavery is absolutely right, so long as the majority of people in the practicing society think so. You cannot progress if there is nothing to progress toward or away from.
Let us understand, seeing as youre having difficulty. Under C.R. a society's current moral code is absolutely right. Past moral codes are absolutely right. Future moral codes are absolutely right. So long as their within the culture that they pertain to. There is no basis within or without of the society to say that theyre any better or worse than anything else.

Saying that something is moral only in context to your society. If your society is ignorant of genocide, doesnt know about it, what it is, etc, then its not wrong. Ignorance of a topic therefore equates to the topic being morally neutral, regardless of what it is. The Holocaust, before we were aware, therefore wasnt wrong, being that the group in power and majority found it acceptable it was in fact right.

Intolerant. There is no answer to this question through C.R., hence why I asked it. I phrased it differently then I should have however, it should have been "What attitude should a person take toward an intolerant culture."

About dropping right, you seem not to understand what youre saying. Within a culture, anything understood to be right by the majority is right, completely, absolutely.

One numbered response. #8 of my initial response. In order to clarify I need some examples from you, that should have been quite clear.

The Eskimo example I was using wasnt asserting right or wrong now was it? I was just posing the question, and I really dont care how you feel about it. Cultural relativism isnt what you feel, its a system of morality, or as you like to synonymously say, a principle of approach for analyzing other culture's morality. I refrained from judging entirely, because its not the point of this topic nor of the question itself.

Your aggressive stance on an issue which youre clearly not very educated in doesnt help your case.

[athon]

I paid quite a bit of attention to them thankyou very much. Cultural relativism is what? Analyzing cultural morality via practices, history, etc. Moral Relativism is what? Analyzing morality culturally via practices, history, etc. Yes, nice distinction.

Here's a simplified definition for you. Mind you, this borders on overly simple, but gives you a starting place:

Cultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of "scientific" anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view.

Taken from this site (http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm).

I didnt use a number system, because your post doesnt really say anything anyway, so hopefully youle be able to tell what parts of your rambling Im responding to.

Translated this says 'I can't really follow what you're saying, so I'll just say more of what I said before'. Be my guest.

Saying something isnt a system, hmm. Scientific method is a system of analyzing.... Scientific method is a principle of approaching.... Yes, another nice distinction. Yes, this was an example, if you cant understand it ponder it for a moment.

*Sigh* Cultural relativism isn't a system of anything. It is a principle.

The scientific method isn't a system. It is a method.

A system, depending on your context, is typically an arrangement of rules through which something is categorized. Nothing is being categorized in C.R.; it merely offers an approach through which you can analyse something.

It does in fact say there is no morality. There can be no morality. Morality cannot exist as a singular entity within cultural relativism, there can only be moralities. If there was morality then it would be a singular entity, and thus universal now wouldnt it.
Ex. "There is no truth." Whats wrong with it?

Look up the word 'objective'. Please. Do it. You've embarrassed yourself enough. It is key to this whole discussion. I will keep reminding you until you show that you understand the word.

"Explain whats not very smart." Really? You cant see how saying that societies have a universal right to decide for themselves contradicts cultural relativism? Much less how it contradicts what you yourself said, which yes it is "might makes right", meaning that a larger society can take that "right that every society has" and just toss it in the trash.

A right: Noun1.right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature;
Taken from webster's (http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/rights).

I'm not saying they are 'right', as in comparable to morally correct. I am saying that every person, due simply to nature, has the right to their own values. They can be prevented from enacting behaviours by law or tradition, but they have the right to a value.

Again you keep making the same mistake over and over - there is no objective system of morals. You're not comprehending what I'm writing, either because you can't or because you don't want to.

Why are you incapable of understanding this. If the majority of a society thinks something is right, as morality is only a function of society, under cultural relativism it IS RIGHT, absolutely, within that society. What are you bringing in objective moral standards for? Fun?

Then what the hell is your argument? Morals are indeed subjective. That's the whole point!! There is no objective set of morals. You keep referring to morality as if it is a single objective standing, and then maintaining 'morals don't exist'. Talk about contradiction. Stick to the definitions.

And no no no no. A society cannot progress. Progress implies direction, how can you have a direction if there is no objective standard?

Again, what the hell are you talking about? You're playing semantics with 'progress' now? Here's an analogy for you - society is like evolution in that neither has an objective goal, but both change under the influences of internal and external stresses.

Try that one.

You say in context to that society's morals, too bad C.R. says that slavery is absolutely right...

No, sunshine. It says it is right in the context of that culture. That's it. No absolutes.

Let us understand, seeing as youre having difficulty. Under C.R. a society's current moral code is absolutely right. Past moral codes are absolutely right. Future moral codes are absolutely right. So long as their within the culture that they pertain to. There is no basis within or without of the society to say that theyre any better or worse than anything else.

Ok, so this is a communication difficulty. You're not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to expressing yourself, hence the contradictions.

Here; there is no 'absolutely' right. It's not absolute - 'right' only exists in the context of the culture.

The problem is not that we disagree, it seems, but that you're playing with language, saying things such as there is 'no morality', and 'it is absolutely right'.

Saying that something is moral only in context to your society. If your society is ignorant of genocide, doesnt know about it, what it is, etc, then its not wrong.

This makes no sense. A moral defence is only ever in conjunction with an action of behaviour. If I don't know about the behaviour, I can't describe it, let alone say whether or not it is moral. When it becomes known to a community, it adopts the moral label in the context of the values of that community.

Understand?

Ignorance of a topic therefore equates to the topic being morally neutral, regardless of what it is. The Holocaust, before we were aware, therefore wasnt wrong, being that the group in power and majority found it acceptable it was in fact right.

The Holocaust can only be labelled right or wrong in the context of a set of values. Since values are subjective to the community, so is the moral description of it. That is very different to saying 'the Holocaust outside of my being aware of it wasn't wrong', or that it is right because the majority in power found it to be right.

Again, I feel we agree more than this is letting on, however you're just not articulating it well. Choice of words, grammar and sentence structure matter.

About dropping right, you seem not to understand what youre saying. Within a culture, anything understood to be right by the majority is right, completely, absolutely.

Within that culture, yes.

Cultural relativism isnt what you feel, its a system of morality, or as you like to synonymously say, a principle of approach for analyzing other culture's morality. I refrained from judging entirely, because its not the point of this topic nor of the question itself.

You asked 'what's the moral impact of this situation?'. Morals only exist within a context of a set of values, hence I gave two examples of sets of values. Mine and theirs. There is no morality outside of such a context.

Your aggressive stance on an issue which youre clearly not very educated in doesnt help your case.

And your choice of language doesn't help yours. You sound very much like somebody who sat in a pub listening to some people discuss the topic and, feeling you have a loose grasp of it, are trying to repeat it. In truth, you're coming across much less like you've studied it, and more like you're trying to parrot it without an understanding.

Athon

[Koshy]

With tolerance. To be intolerant of them is to adopt their value system. To be tolerant is to demonstrate the value of tolerance.

It is an interesting question. For a community that teeters on the brink of survival, caring for individuals who are unable to care for themselves may be an unaffordable luxury. Perhaps those eskimo tribes who did not rid themselves of burdensome individuals ended up dying out as a result and those communities that were willing to adopt such a harsh practice could survive in that harsh environment.

I think the moral impact would be for the society to place a greater value on the survival of the tribe than the survival of individuals in that tribe.

The issue regarding tolerance is that the culture finding one culture intolerant would in fact have ground to make that judgment from in the first place, thereby theres no real answer to it.

About the Eskimos, yes, under C.R. theres nothing that isnt right that can be agreed upon by a majority and doesnt result in the obliteration of the society that contains it. Buttttt, this poses a problem as some really wacky things can come about as a result. In this instance this practice came about to help insure the welfare of the group as a whole, however, in order to assure the welfare of the group can extend into a very wide array of topics with some very odd methods of upkeep. Listing examples leads to controversy and a derailed topic, so Ill not, but there should be a bunch readily thought of.

Thanks by the way for a reasonable response. :)

[Koshy]

Athon

Quote reduced to the only thing of meaning within the post itself.

I understand what youre saying. You muddy the issue and dont bother to take the time to understand anything. Your definition of cultural relativism is intentionally misleading, not to say that I dont understand it, because I do.

The definition you gave reduced to the only thing that matters "all cultures are of equal value." All morals are of equal value. Great, thanks for not understanding your own point.

Look up the word objective? The statement that you are addressing is objective, your failure to understand not withstanding.

Ive not referred to morality as if its anything, Ive just been debating with you, while you become ever more agitated in your lack of understanding of the issue, while not asserting anything about what I believe to be the situation.

And no genius. There is absolute right. Within a culture that practices slavery, so long as the majority think its right, its absolutely right. There is no way to criticize it, there is no way for it to be wrong, unless there is an objective system of analysis. Hence there is no way to protest a moral issue if the majority supports it because you would in fact be going against what is right. Its not absolutely right for anyone except the members of the society in which it exists, maybe thats the piece of the puzzle youre missing.

My choice of language? You sound very much like someone prattling on on an issue which they have little to no idea about. I have a firm understanding of the issue, Ive consulted with doctors of philosophy on the issue, and Im afraid they disagree with you. I can print out the debate and swing by tomorrow if you like, and get a fresh appraisal, not that Im trying to be a dick or anything, but honestly, I understand the issue at hand, the only reason I would want to bring it by is to get a more eloquent way to dispatch whats wrong with your statements.

C.R. is a circular and self defeating philosophical concept.

[athon]

Quote reduced to the only thing of meaning within the post itself.

Evasion noted. Wow, you're really not going to last long around here. A small tip - not being able to back any claims up with any evidence, while avoiding addressing the key arguments, makes you look like you've brought nothing to the table and are just making stuff up.

Your definition of cultural relativism is intentionally misleading, not to say that I dont understand it, because I do.

Fine. Post a link to another definition. Take your time. I searched through five, all saying the same thing, and chose this one because it was nice and concise.

Here's the one in wiki, to make it really, really easy for you:

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture.

The definition you gave reduced to the only thing that matters "all cultures are of equal value." All morals are of equal value. Great, thanks for not understanding your own point.

How does it conflict with what I said? All cultures have equal value and need to be studied from a neutral viewpoint. You keep shaking your head and saying 'no' but don't articulate why this is wrong.

I'll ask again; against what criteria, then, should values be judged? If they are not all equal, there must be a criteria against one should always objectively analyse them.

I don't expect you to answer this, as you keep avoiding it.

And no genius. There is absolute right. Within a culture that practices slavery, so long as the majority think its right, its absolutely right.

Fine, so in light of your abuse of the word 'absolute', I'll agree. However, within a culture doesn't equate within a single community. Culture is relative to a set of values and behaviours. To understand those behaviours, you need to understand it from the viewpoint of somebody who has those values, and of the experiences they had in adopting them.

Hence there is no way to protest a moral issue if the majority supports it because you would in fact be going against what is right.

Yes there is. If there are ten people in a room, and nine have no value for X, and you do, then you protest it. There is no absolute - even in a community, values will vary between individuals with variances in cultures. Hence there is no community 'right', except that which is established by the majority. This is your problem - you're establishing some moral 'right' which is absolute on a community level. Numerous cultures can exist within the same community. That same C.R. must be applied to all of them, down to the individual. It doesn't stop with a single diverse population.

Your understanding of what constitutes a culture is what is failing you.

Its not absolutely right for anyone except the members of the society in which it exists, maybe thats the piece of the puzzle youre missing.

Nope. It goes beneath just that society, but down to the level of individual social groups. And even further, to individuals. It's 'cultural relativism' - defining a single culture relates to a range of shared behaviours.

I can print out the debate and swing by tomorrow if you like, and get a fresh appraisal.
C.R. is a circular and self defeating philosophical concept.

Feel free. While you're at it, get them to recommend something to act as evidence in support of your stance, like some reputable internet sites.

Athon

[Koshy]

Evasion noted. Wow, you're really not going to last long around here. A small tip - not being able to back any claims up with any evidence, while avoiding addressing the key arguments, makes you look like you've brought nothing to the table and are just making stuff up.

Feel free. While you're at it, get them to recommend something to act as evidence in support of your stance, like some reputable internet sites.

Athon

Lets see you back up anything with anything other than your mindless gibbering. Youve posted a link to a definition thats common knowledge, your vast contribution is duly noted. Ive not evaded you, only sidestepped the more pointless portions of your discourse. Youve evaded the more clear examples of the issue however, or just refused to think about what youre blabbering about. I respect that youre a teacher, according to your profile, however Id think that as one youde be keen on seeking out ignorance, especially within yourself.

I will bring it by, so I can come back and give their responses then hear you prattle on more in ignorance.

Cultural relativism says nothing about anything, its a positive and a negative at the same time. Like subjectivism, if I say youre wrong Im right, problem is youre right in your position that youre right as well, therefore the both of us might not have said anything and accomplished markedly more. Youre seeking to form an analysis of something based on an analysis based on an analysis.
- Evaluating morality on the basis of a morality thats formed on the basis of individual morality, which is itself entirely irrelevant to anything but itself.

Ive remained objective, your aggressive stance prompts a likewise stance from myself however.

[quixotecoyote]

:words:

I'm still waiting for you to produce the objective standards to judge cultures by.

[Koshy]

I'm still waiting for you to produce the objective standards to judge cultures by.

Yes, Im not arguing that there are objective standards am I? Im simply looking at the problems with C.R.

I havnt tried to assert anything, whats the deal with everyone assuming Im an objectivist?

As a side note, it would be pointless to discuss when theres not even an understanding of the base issues of the topic from at least one of the other participants. If the topic progresses far enough Ill be happy to talk about it.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, Im not arguing that there are objective standards am I? Im simply looking at the problems with C.R.

I havnt tried to assert anything, whats the deal with everyone assuming Im an objectivist?

As a side note, it would be pointless to discuss when theres not even an understanding of the base issues of the topic from at least one of the other participants. If the topic progresses far enough Ill be happy to however.

If you agree that there are no objective standards, then guess what? You're a cultural relativist. Welcome to the club.

[Koshy]

If you agree that there are no objective standards, then guess what? You're a cultural relativist. Welcome to the club.

Did I not just say Ive refrained from stating what I believe?

[quixotecoyote]

Did I not just say Ive refrained from stating what I believe?

Sorry,I thought you were being honest when you said you weren't arguing there were objective standards.

Were you?

In order to refute cultural relativism what you must do, and the only thing you must do, is justify a set of objective standards to judge all cultures by.

If you cannot, then stop with the handwaving. Dismissal of CR is a claim that objective standards exist. It's put up or shut up time.

[Koshy]

Sorry,I thought you were being honest when you said you weren't arguing there were objective standards.

Were you?

In order to refute cultural relativism what you must do, and the only thing you must do, is justify a set of objective standards to judge all cultures by.

If you cannot, then stop with the handwaving. Dismissal of CR is a claim that objective standards exist. It's put up or shut up time.

I am afraid youre wrong. The only thing I have to do to disprove C.R. is show one thing that is present in all cultures, thus constituting a universal. There are no universals in C.R. because that would represent an overarching moral value.

A simple example, find me a culture in which dishonestly is promoted and valued. Not sneakyness, not underhanded tactics, outright dishonestly. Such that if you ask "wheres the bathroom" you might as well have not opened your mouth because youre not going to get an accurate answer. Such that if you went to a doctor, who somehow managed to complete his education being told nothing but lies, to be diagnosed you couldnt expect an honest answer. Im not aware of such a society, maybe you are. Would dishonesty then be a universally disparaged?

Perhaps I should put something silly forward for you to justify C.R. with. Find me some moral codes that exists solely within a single or limited number of societies. Also, be careful not to confuse something such as burial vs consuming the dead as instances such as this would constitute different cultural customs exemplifying the same moral value of honoring the dead.

Just a simple example. C.R. has no place in reality except perhaps in anthropological studies, comparing the thoughts of a particular group to another without making a judgment, or something like that.

I find it interesting all this hostility within a philosophical discussion, philosophy whose purpose is to promote reasonable discussion and thought.

[quixotecoyote]

I am afraid youre wrong. The only thing I have to do to disprove C.R. is show one thing that is present in all cultures, thus constituting a universal. There are no universals in C.R. because that would represent an overarching moral value.

A simple example, find me a culture in which dishonestly is promoted and valued. Not sneakyness, not underhanded tactics, outright dishonestly. Such that if you ask "wheres the bathroom" you might as well have not opened your mouth because youre not going to get an accurate answer. Such that if you went to a doctor, who somehow managed to complete his education being told nothing but lies, to be diagnosed you couldnt expect an honest answer. Im not aware of such a society, maybe you are. Would dishonesty then be a universally disparaged?

Perhaps I should put something silly forward for you to justify C.R. with. Find me some moral codes that exists solely within a single or limited number of societies. Also, be careful not to confuse something such as burial vs consuming the dead as instances such as this would constitute different cultural customs exemplifying the same moral value of honoring the dead.

Just a simple example. C.R. has no place in reality except perhaps in anthropological studies, comparing the thoughts of a particular group to another without making a judgment, or something like that.

I find it interesting all this hostility within a philosophical discussion, philosophy whose purpose is to promote reasonable discussion and thought.

Spare me your high-horse antics.

Show me a definition of CR that states that all aspects of all cultures are different or your remarking on similarities is pointless. I'll save you some time, you can't because it's an absurd misrepresentation. CR acknowledges that differences exist, not that there are no similarities.

If you took even an undergrad course on multicultural communication [I'vet a BA in Communications and am willing to provide evidence, you?], you would have learned a slew of differing values about hospitality, individualism vs collectivism, face saving vs plain speaking, gift giving, punctuality, etc. Unless you can provide a framework for saying which cultures' values of these things ate better than others, you cannot disprove CR.

[Koshy]

Spare me your high-horse antics.

Show me a definition of CR that states that all aspects of all cultures are different or your remarking on similarities is pointless. I'll save you some time, you can't because it's an absurd misrepresentation. CR acknowledges that differences exist, not that there are no similarities.

If you took even an undergrad course on multicultural communication [I'vet a BA in Communications and am willing to provide evidence, you?], you would have learned a slew of differing values about hospitality, individualism vs collectivism, face saving vs plain speaking, gift giving, punctuality, etc. Unless you can provide a framework for saying which cultures' values of these things ate better than others, you cannot disprove CR.

Youre confusing cultural customs with moral values, which I specifically warned against.

[quixotecoyote]

Youre confusing cultural customs with moral values, which I specifically warned against.

You're equivocating which I assumed I did not have to warn against.

Individualism is not a custom. It is a value.

Collectivism is not a custom. It is a value.

The cultural attitude toward time is not a custom. It is a value.

The role of the host is not a custom. It is a value.

The cultural attitude towards honesty is not a custom. It is a value.

The conceptualization of face is not a custom. It is a value.

Seriously, were you able to read what I wrote earlier or were all those Ph.D.s blocking your screen?

[athon]

I am afraid youre wrong. The only thing I have to do to disprove C.R. is show one thing that is present in all cultures, thus constituting a universal. There are no universals in C.R. because that would represent an overarching moral value.

Right, now we're getting down to the real discussion.

That wouldn't disprove anything, Koshy. Culture would still remain relative, even if every culture shared a given value. It's not coincidental that no culture comes to mind that doesn't condemn an individual for murdering another healthy person. However, that doesn't create an objective value - it says that there is an underlying communal influence on the values of a human community. The fact that communities are strengthened by larger numbers of healthy contributors means it's going to be fairly much a given that murder is immoral. That value itself, however, is not an objective truth. A self-destructive community could well arise with murder as a value, yet by that very notion it wouldn't last very long.

Perhaps I should put something silly forward for you to justify C.R. with. Find me some moral codes that exists solely within a single or limited number of societies. Also, be careful not to confuse something such as burial vs consuming the dead as instances such as this would constitute different cultural customs exemplifying the same moral value of honoring the dead.

Such adjusting of the goal posts is dishonest. I'll show you why;

My own culture within a western, post-industrial community, honours the dead. We don't eat them. Why not? Because that is not a moral action. It is based on the fact we do not see the value of consuming the flesh of the dead in order to honour them. Some cultures do embrace that value, hence have that moral.

Just a simple example. C.R. has no place in reality except perhaps in anthropological studies, comparing the thoughts of a particular group to another without making a judgment, or something like that.

I'm still not sure of what you're saying. You're skipping all over the place, which makes me wonder where you're being honest.

So we can have an honest discussion, please answer these questions:

Are values objective?
Can a single population of individuals living with the same community comprise of more than one culture?
Do you agree that morality is a behaviour or set of behaviours that arises out of values adopted from one's own culture?
Do you agree that there is no objective set of standards against which a culture's morals can be judged in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'?
Do you agree that the only way, therefore, a behaviour observed in a community can be assessed and evaluated is against its own moral code?

Answer these and we will have an open and honest grounds for discussion. Until then, you've got nothing.

I find it interesting all this hostility within a philosophical discussion, philosophy whose purpose is to promote reasonable discussion and thought.

Reasonable discussion and thought requires good communication, an agreement on the meaning of common terms and for all claims to be supported by evidence. You're lacking on all of those things, therefore reasonable discussion is poorer for it.

While I don't see anybody being hostile, by any means, many individuals here (including me) don't take lightly to people making statements based on ignorance of a topic with a tone that they know better. It smacks not only of arrogance, but of an unwillingness to discuss honestly.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

I'm hostile because of the blatant evasion, hedging, and equivocation.

But if that stops I'll go back to being pleasant.

[Koshy]

You're equivocating which I assumed I did not have to warn against.

Individualism is not a custom. It is a value.

Collectivism is not a custom. It is a value.

The cultural attitude toward time is not a custom. It is a value.

The role of the host is not a custom. It is a value.

The cultural attitude towards honesty is not a custom. It is a value.

The conceptualization of face is not a custom. It is a value.

Seriously, were you able to read what I wrote earlier or were all those Ph.D.s blocking your screen?

I assume you misread that, being the bright fellow youve made yourself out to be. I dont have phds, I only correspond with the phds, as someone who specializes in language thats a curious oversight hmm?

Despite youre saying that theyre values and not customs Im afraid they are.

Another simple example. After a meal it is considered a compliment if you belch loudly in some areas of the world. Whereas it would be considered disgusting in others. Therefore someone who was on the receiving end of the belch that wasnt accustomed to it would feel upset and that the other person had no value of offering gratitude for a meal. Whereas the opposite custom of just offering thanks "that was great" etc without a belch would be misunderstood in the opposite side of the world as being without gratitude. While in reality they are both differing methods of showing the same value. Hopefully this clears up something for you without going into an overblown example and without fully requiting your outrageous and hostile attitude. At least I didnt cite the other problem with the post of yours before last.

[quixotecoyote]

I assume you misread that, being the bright fellow youve made yourself out to be. I dont have phds, I only correspond with the phds, as someone who specializes in language thats a curious oversight hmm?

Despite youre saying that theyre values and not customs Im afraid they are.

Another simple example. After a meal it is considered a compliment if you belch loudly in some areas of the world. Whereas it would be considered disgusting in others. Therefore someone who was on the receiving end of the belch that wasnt accustomed to it would feel upset and that the other person had no value of offering gratitude for a meal. Whereas the opposite custom of just offering thanks "that was great" etc without a belch would be misunderstood in the opposite side of the world as being without gratitude. While in reality they are both differing methods of showing the same value. Hopefully this clears up something for you without going into an overblown example and without fully requiting your outrageous and hostile attitude. At least I didnt cite the other problem with the post of yours before last.

Congratulations, you've responded to my list of values with an unrelated custom. Cheers!

eta: and my apologies for misunderstanding your education. When I read

I have three doctorates of philosophy who disagree with you, and I tend to side with what Ive been told by them, aside from being more educated they seem to be more openminded/truthminded.

I interpreted you as anthropomorphizing your degrees.

[athon]

I assume you misread that, being the bright fellow youve made yourself out to be. I dont have phds, I only correspond with the phds, as someone who specializes in language thats a curious oversight hmm?

Please use some apostrophes! I'm careful not to pick on anybody for poor spelling or grammar, however it makes it so much easier to read (and to take you seriously) if you do that.

Poor grammar emphasises laziness in writing or poor education. I think for you it is the former. If it's simply that your keyboard is broken, I apologise and withdraw the request.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

Customs are expressions of values by the way.

So say you are , in China where your example may take place.

After you belch the hostess asks if there was anything she could have done differently.

You respond that it needed more salt.

Gross faux pas. In this example there is no explicit custom being enacted. There is only your value of honesty clashing with her value of face.

[athon]

Another simple example. After a meal it is considered a compliment if you belch loudly in some areas of the world. Whereas it would be considered disgusting in others. Therefore someone who was on the receiving end of the belch that wasnt accustomed to it would feel upset and that the other person had no value of offering gratitude for a meal. Whereas the opposite custom of just offering thanks "that was great" etc without a belch would be misunderstood in the opposite side of the world as being without gratitude. While in reality they are both differing methods of showing the same value.

Anybody care to translate for me and explain how this is relevant? Anybody?

Quixote presented a whole range of values. A custom is a behaviour arising from tradition, which is continued to be practiced by individuals regardless of whether the origins of the behaviour still have merit. For instance, it is customary to shake hands in the west. The original value was to present your hand to demonstrate you were unarmed. The value in this was obvious - it was one of honesty and demonstration of the trust of a relative stranger. Today the custom is practiced simply as social tradition. Belching was the same; it was once practiced to show you ate your food so quickly that you thought it was delicious. Today, the speed of how fast you eat is irrelevant - belching is of customary value due to that cultural tradition.

Neither is itself a value. Both are customs arising from common practice. They retain use as traditions are behaviours that bond cultural and social groups.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

athon: That's a better definition than I was using, but it still feels incomplete.

How does, "An particular expression of value perpetuated by tradition" strike you?

eta:eta: Just for the hell of it, I asked Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1cus·tom http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?custom01.wav=custom%27%29)
Pronunciation: 'k&s-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English custume, from Anglo-French, from Latin consuetudin-, consuetudo, from consuescere to accustom, from com- + suescere to accustom; akin to suus one's own -- more at SUICIDE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/suicide)
1 a : a usage or practice common to many or to a particular place or class or habitual with an individual b : long-established practice considered as unwritten law c : repeated practice d : the whole body of usages, practices, or conventions that regulate social life
2 plural a : duties, tolls, or imposts imposed by the sovereign law of a country on imports or exports b usually singular in construction : the agency, establishment, or procedure for collecting such customs (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/customs)
3 a : business patronage b : usually habitual patrons : CUSTOMERS (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/customers)
Looks like custom is independent of values and your definition was all around better.

[Koshy]

Right, now we're getting down to the real discussion.

1. That wouldn't disprove anything, Koshy. Culture would still remain relative, even if every culture shared a given value. It's not coincidental that no culture comes to mind that doesn't condemn an individual for murdering another healthy person. However, that doesn't create an objective value - it says that there is an underlying communal influence on the values of a human community. The fact that communities are strengthened by larger numbers of healthy contributors means it's going to be fairly much a given that murder is immoral. That value itself, however, is not an objective truth. A self-destructive community could well arise with murder as a value, yet by that very notion it wouldn't last very long.



2. Such adjusting of the goal posts is dishonest. I'll show you why;

My own culture within a western, post-industrial community, honours the dead. We don't eat them. Why not? Because that is not a moral action. It is based on the fact we do not see the value of consuming the flesh of the dead in order to honour them. Some cultures do embrace that value, hence have that moral.



3. I'm still not sure of what you're saying. You're skipping all over the place, which makes me wonder where you're being honest.

So we can have an honest discussion, please answer these questions:

4. A.Are values objective?
B. Can a single population of individuals living with the same community comprise of more than one culture?
C. Do you agree that morality is a behaviour or set of behaviours that arises out of values adopted from one's own culture?
D.Do you agree that there is no objective set of standards against which a culture's morals can be judged in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'?
E.Do you agree that the only way, therefore, a behaviour observed in a community can be assessed and evaluated is against its own moral code?

Answer these and we will have an open and honest grounds for discussion. Until then, you've got nothing.



5. Reasonable discussion and thought requires good communication, an agreement on the meaning of common terms and for all claims to be supported by evidence. You're lacking on all of those things, therefore reasonable discussion is poorer for it.

6.While I don't see anybody being hostile, by any means, many individuals here (including me) don't take lightly to people making statements based on ignorance of a topic with a tone that they know better. It smacks not only of arrogance, but of an unwillingness to discuss honestly.

Athon


6. Thats pretty funny. I have a low post count therefore I am ignorant.

1. That would disprove C.R. There are NO overarching morals under C.R. If there is something that all societies embrace without exception it is not something that is then born out of any particular society.

2. I see, its dishonest when I ask the question back at you, but not when Im posed the same question. Slightly unfair no?

3. Why would I be dishonest? What motivation would I have to parade in and lie to a group of people that really mean absolutely nothing to me? Im essentially regurgitating textbook examples of what is wrong with C.R. and I continue to get flak based on incorrect definitions or corruptions of the actual meaning of philosophical debate. There are problems present in the reasoning associated with C.R. that Ive stated yet I keep getting back examples contrary that Id expect from a 15 year old.

4. A.Are values objective? The discussion doesnt concern my beliefs, yet, until we have some sort of agreement on what C.R. actually is.
B. Wouldnt by definition the groups of people living within the community constitute the culture? There are many different groups of individuals living in NewYork, which together constitute the culture of the city.
C. Would you say in a situation outside of a culture there are no morals? Which would be hard to demonstrate in any case. Apes seem to demonstrate some semblance of morality, obviously not to the same degree as humans, however they skirmish over territory and such.
D. This is question A again.
E. This is pretty much the definition again. Lets go back to the overblown example of the holocaust. Do you believe it was right since you have no basis to complain as it took place in another culture?

5. Im not lacking anything. Im not understanding this impregnation of idealism regarding C.R. Is it that its so trendy that its just unforgivable to explain the glaring problems with it, or whats the problem. The definitions given thus far have been exactly what Ive said, the problems with it are textbook and common sense.

Just to bridge into the universal aspect. Why are universal rights so apparently repulsive to everyone here?

[quixotecoyote]

-watch this space-

[Koshy]

Anybody care to translate for me and explain how this is relevant? Anybody?

Quixote presented a whole range of values. A custom is a behaviour arising from tradition, which is continued to be practiced by individuals regardless of whether the origins of the behaviour still have merit. For instance, it is customary to shake hands in the west. The original value was to present your hand to demonstrate you were unarmed. The value in this was obvious - it was one of honesty and demonstration of the trust of a relative stranger. Today the custom is practiced simply as social tradition. Belching was the same; it was once practiced to show you ate your food so quickly that you thought it was delicious. Today, the speed of how fast you eat is irrelevant - belching is of customary value due to that cultural tradition.

Neither is itself a value. Both are customs arising from common practice. They retain use as traditions are behaviours that bond cultural and social groups.

Athon

This is the most elemental example available, if you fail to understand it thats your own problem.

Also for you Athon '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' insert where needed.

[quixotecoyote]

This is the most elemental example available, if you fail to understand it thats your own problem.


What do you think the difference between customs and values is? You have not thus far demonstrated that understanding.

[Koshy]

What do you think the difference between customs and values is? You have not thus far demonstrated that understanding.

What do I think the difference between customs and values are hmm.

Well, lets see.

A custom is an action exemplifying a value.

A value is an underlying concept that generally has some simple or complex set of customs surrounding it. The belch example is extremely clear and easy to understand.

Eating the dead vs burying the dead is not a different moral value. Its a different custom, both are for the purpose of honoring the dead, which is the value at heart of the action.

[quixotecoyote]

What do I think the difference between customs and values are hmm.

Well, lets see.

A custom is an action exemplifying a value.

A value is an underlying concept that generally has some simple or complex set of customs surrounding it. The belch example is extremely clear and easy to understand.

Eating the dead vs burying the dead is not a different moral value. Its a different custom, both are for the purpose of honoring the dead, which is the value at heart of the action.

Ok. So explain how individualism is a custom. Then explain how collectivism is a custom.

[Koshy]

Ok. So explain how individualism is a custom. Then explain how collectivism is a custom.

More difficult, hence why Im bringing this by tomorrow as well.

Is individualism a custom? Is collectivism? Id wager that they're both systems for the advancement of their culture yes? Both ideals are in place to promote the stability of their society and are different ideologies of the same goal. Individualism promises progress and prosperity, as does collectivism.

Are there any inherent problems with either of them?
Is individualism rather a huge set of customs as is collectivism based on underlying values?

Both are differencing ideals seeking to obtain the same goal.

ETA: Im off to bed for now, Ill be more fresh tomorrow.

[quixotecoyote]

Also honoring the dead is a variable value. Some cultures value it extremely highly with a tradition of ancestor worship, e.g. China. To others, like the Kibbutz in Israel, honoring the dead is secondary if not tangential to mourning the communities loss. Grouping such opposite cultures together and saying they have the same value obscures the meaning of the customs they perform, but this is arguable and I'd rather focus on individualism versus collectivism, ehich is a much more clear cut argument.

[quixotecoyote]

More difficult, hence why Im bringing this by tomorrow as well.

Is individualism a custom? Is collectivism? Id wager that they're both systems for the advancement of their culture yes? Both ideals are in place to promote the stability of their society and are different ideologies of the same goal. Individualism promises progress and prosperity, as does collectivism.

Are there any inherent problems with either of them?
Is individualism rather a huge set of customs as is collectivism based on underlying values?

Both are differencing ideals seeking to obtain the same goal.

ETA: Im off to bed for now, Ill be more fresh tomorrow.

Goodnight.

Be aware when you are writing your reply that maintaining one's culture may be a value in itself, but it does not include all other values as ignorable subsets, which is really the only way you could argue that individualism and collectivism are the same value.

Also, if you think individualism is valued for the promotion of society, you should brush up on individualism.

[athon]

athon: That's a better definition than I was using, but it still feels incomplete.

I agree. I could probably write a whole paper on what a custom is and what defines it, though.

How does, "An particular expression of value perpetuated by tradition" strike you?

Looks like custom is independent of values and your definition was all around better.

The only value in a custom, as I see it, is one of respecting social practice. To follow the customs of a culture, you demonstrate a respect and understanding of their tradition. For those within a culture it shows you belong to that group simply because you behave as they do. It might arise from a behaviour that once had some value or reason attached, however most customs are practiced purely as a 'mirroring' of the behaviours others perform.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

I agree. I could probably write a whole paper on what a custom is and what defines it, though.



The only value in a custom, as I see it, is one of respecting social practice. To follow the customs of a culture, you demonstrate a respect and understanding of their tradition. For those within a culture it shows you belong to that group simply because you behave as they do. It might arise from a behaviour that once had some value or reason attached, however most customs are practiced purely as a 'mirroring' of the behaviours others perform.

Athon

Agreed. I had a knee-jerk disagreement but it was without merit.

[athon]

6. Thats pretty funny. I have a low post count therefore I am ignorant.

Non sequitor. I said nothing of your post count. The arrogance is evident in your choice of wording and your approach to discussion.

I honestly find it difficult to understand what you are saying, so much of your responses, which are all unsupported by evidence and are all rather unclear, I've ignored.

Is English your mother language? Again, I'm not intending to be rude, it's an honest question as your choice of words seems to indicate you're not certain of their meaning. It would go a long way to my accepting that perhaps the difficulty in your communicating is not because you're ignorant, but just aren't good at translating it.

3. Why would I be dishonest? What motivation would I have to parade in and lie to a group of people that really mean absolutely nothing to me? Im essentially regurgitating textbook examples of what is wrong with C.R. and I continue to get flak based on incorrect definitions or corruptions of the actual meaning of philosophical debate.

Then please refer to a text book. Provide something to back yourself up. Because no half decent philosophy text book I've read backs up your view.

A.Are values objective? The discussion doesnt concern my beliefs, yet, until we have some sort of agreement on what C.R. actually is.

I've provided a definition, and backed it up. You have done no such thing. Your definition of C.R. is vague and unsupported by the texts.

The fact you won't answer this demonstrates you're not out for an open and honest discussion. This is not a 'belief' - are values objective? It is a simple question that lies at the core of your problems with cultural relativism.

Wouldnt by definition the groups of people living within the community constitute the culture?

Culture is defined by a set of observable behaviours. Those inhabiting a city would subscribe to a variety of cultures. A culture is not synonomous with a community, however.

There are many different groups of individuals living in NewYork, which together constitute the culture of the city.

Together that contribute to a culture of the city, again pertaining defining of said culture. They themselves do not constitute anything more than a population.

C. Would you say in a situation outside of a culture there are no morals?

I would say morals are defined as being behaviours exhibited within a cultural context. Without a cultural context, 'moral' is an empty term.

Which would be hard to demonstrate in any case. Apes seem to demonstrate some semblance of morality, obviously not to the same degree as humans, however they skirmish over territory and such.

Hard to demonstrate how? Where else would morals arise from, if not in defence of a value? Indeed even apes have some form of cultural morality arising out of basic values they have.

Nonetheless, you did not answer the question; Do you agree that morality is a behaviour or set of behaviours that arises out of values adopted from one's own culture? It's either 'yes', 'no', or 'I'm not sure because I haven't thought about it / don't have enough information on it'.

D. This is question A again.

No, it's not.

A was 'Are values objective?'
D was 'Do you agree that there is no objective set of standards against which a culture's morals can be judged in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'?

A speaks specifically of values. D speaks specifically of a set of standards against which morals can be judged. Subtle difference, but they are different. It is possible to believe that values are subective but that there are some form of objective standards against which morals can be judged.

So, answer the question.

E. This is pretty much the definition again. Lets go back to the overblown example of the holocaust. Do you believe it was right since you have no basis to complain as it took place in another culture?

Evasion again noted.

This is simple. You say C.R. is circular and useless, correct? Yet I ask you to respond to the points C.R. makes, which is one that says morality is not objective and moral rightness can only ever be judged in the context of the community from which it arises. I ask if you agree or disagree with this...and you avoid answering. See the issue?

Your question is a strawman. Cultural Relativism says 'right' can only exist in the context of a culture. Since you are asking me my personal view of something being right, I can only use my own cultural background and values. Therefore I would say it was wrong, regardless of the community in which it happened. This does not make it objectively right or wrong, as you are asking for a response regarding my own cultural context.

5. Im not lacking anything. Im not understanding this impregnation of idealism regarding C.R. Is it that its so trendy that its just unforgivable to explain the glaring problems with it, or whats the problem. The definitions given thus far have been exactly what Ive said, the problems with it are textbook and common sense.

Again, if they are text book you should be able to refer to a text. You haven't.

The fact you still haven't answered questions A, D and E means you're not interested in having an open and honest debate, but instead are holding onto your naive view of what C.R. really is.

Athon

[athon]

This is the most elemental example available, if you fail to understand it thats your own problem.

It's based on a false premise; you don't understand what a value is.

Also for you Athon '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' insert where needed.

So it is laziness and not a broken keyboard. Thanks for demonstrating which it was.

A custom is an action exemplifying a value.

I explained what a custom is. It does not need to exemplify a value itself, per se. The value is one of social respect.

A value is an underlying concept that generally has some simple or complex set of customs surrounding it.

Values are quite simply those things an individual finds important;

A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable (www.apsu.edu/wet/whatis.html (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://www.apsu.edu/wet/whatis.html&usg=AFQjCNGdl1PEZEoyk9kf--csnAIJIZKBOA))
Those qualities of behavior, thought, and character that society regards as being intrinsically good, having desirable results, and worthy of emulation by others (www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html&usg=AFQjCNFdfwRTdyL9kuERxT9rHKTi9SKN3Q))
Characteristics of things that make them more or less desirable, important, or useful.(www.dto.com/hunting/glossary/index.jsp (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=X&start=11&oi=define&q=http://www.dto.com/hunting/glossary/index.jsp%3Fstartwith%3Dv&usg=AFQjCNHyntFVLYxS2B-DAQdtkvmWpY2ofw))

They can give rise to customs and behaviours, but themselves are nothing more than what a collective or individual finds important.

The belch example is extremely clear and easy to understand

Your belch example is an example of a custom, not of a value. Even you said a value can underlie a custom. They are not one and the same thing.

Is individualism a custom? Is collectivism? Id wager that they're both systems for the advancement of their culture yes?

Neither is a system. Both are values. The former is a value of the individual's worth over that of the community. Collectivism is a value for the community's worth over the individual. Both inspire behaviours that are intended to create satisfaction and well being amongst its community members.

Both ideals are in place to promote the stability of their society and are different ideologies of the same goal.

So now they are ideals? You're making this up as you go along. :rolleyes:

Is individualism rather a huge set of customs as is collectivism based on underlying values?

Is this even English? I assume you're trying to say 'Are individualism and collectivism large sets of customs based on underlying values?' If so, then no - both of them are values in their own right. Individualism values the individual, collectivism the collective.

As for whether they both are based on a need for individual happiness, that is another philosophical debate which would threaten to derail this discussion. But it does make for an interesting conversation - is happiness the only foundational value? I'll leave that for another thread.

Athon

[Darat]

I paid quite a bit of attention to them thankyou very much. Cultural relativism is what? Analyzing cultural morality via practices, history, etc. Moral Relativism is what? Analyzing morality culturally via practices, history, etc. Yes, nice distinction.

...snip...

Cultural relativism is not just about studying a culture's morality. In that a culture has a morality cultural relativism is a tool to help you understand how that morality works and what it is founded on within a culture but cultural relativism also deals with (as examples) the entertainment that a given culture deals has, the family structure, the legal system, the financial systems and so on.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is what Sylvia Browne does "wrong"?

How do you come to your conclusion?

Would you expect most people with the same objective knowledge as you to come to the same conclusion?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Cultural relativism is not just about studying a culture's morality. In that a culture has a morality cultural relativism is a tool to help you understand how that morality works and what it is founded on within a culture but cultural relativism also deals with (as examples) the entertainment that a given culture deals has, the family structure, the legal system, the financial systems and so on.

I think Koshy is using the term in the non-anthropological sense.

[Darat]

I am afraid youre wrong. The only thing I have to do to disprove C.R. is show one thing that is present in all cultures, thus constituting a universal. There are no universals in C.R. because that would represent an overarching moral value.

...snip...

Cultural Realtivism doesn't make that claim - from Clyde Kluckhohn in 1944

...snip...

The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity will weaken morality. "If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all relative anyway." But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean.

The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable.

[quixotecoyote]

Is what Sylvia Browne does "wrong"?

How do you come to your conclusion?

Would you expect most people with the same objective knowledge as you to come to the same conclusion?

1. Yes.

2. In my cultural context it is wrong to lie, cheat, and steal.

3. Yes, so long as they are share my cultural context.

[quixotecoyote]

I think Koshy is using the term in the non-anthropological sense.
<snort> I mean that in the most non-nasal sense possible, of course.

[athon]

Is what Sylvia Browne does "wrong"?

Yes.

How do you come to your conclusion?

Based on those things I value, such as honesty in understanding reality, not taking money through dishonest means and not taking advantage of those grieving.

Would you expect most people with the same objective knowledge as you to come to the same conclusion?

Not necessarily, as others have different values. Even with the same objective knowledge, their values might differ. For instance, many people feel it's a case of 'buyer beware', where if the individual is gullible enough to believe her, they 'deserve' to lose their money. I don't share that value or follow that line of morality.

Athon

[athon]

I think Koshy is using the term in the non-anthropological sense.

I don't think Koshy knows how he is using the term. Just a suspician.

Athon

[Darat]

I think Koshy is using the term in the non-anthropological sense.

You mean he's talking about Cultural equivalencism?

[Darat]

Is what Sylvia Browne does "wrong"?


Depends on what you mean by wrong. In the sense of she does not do what she claims she does I think she is wrong. I assume you really mean "immoral" by "wrong" and by my morals what she does is wrong.


How do you come to your conclusion?


To the first wrong - based on that there is no evidence that people can talk to the dead or receive communication from them. The second wrong because it does not fit into what I consider are moral actions e.g. misrepresenting yourself for financial gain is in my moral code immoral.


Would you expect most people with the same objective knowledge as you to come to the same conclusion?

No - and I would use cultural relativism to help me understand why other people may come to a different conclusion.

For example someone may believe that the main principle in a social transaction is "buyer beware" so this is not a matter of SB acting in an immoral or moral way at all. Someone else may believe that "to help to comfort someone is a good thing to do" so even if they know that SB doesn't do what she claims to do the fact that people find comfort from what she offers is enough to make SB's actions moral.

Can you start to see what a useful tool CR can be?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's how I answer my own questions:

Is what Sylvia Browne does "wrong"?

Yes.

How do you come to your conclusion?

The level of accuracy she claims is in stark contrast to that observed. She is either a lier or deluded. Either way, she is an highly unreliable source of information. It is morally wrong to base future behaviour on objectively highly unreliable sources of information.

Would you expect most people with the same objective knowledge as you to come to the same conclusion?

No, because people are not rational. However, why should the moral principles of irrational, ill-informed people be equated to those of rational people?

Are the latter principles superior to the former?

The best that anyone can do is base their actions on the most complete and accurate information they have available and be consistent.

[quixotecoyote]

Ivor:
Nice to know and all that, but could you relate it to the discussion at hand?

[athon]

Here's how I answer my own questions: *snip*

Umm...ok. How does that contribute to a discussion on whether morals are relative to a culture or not?

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor:
Nice to know and all that, but could you relate it to the discussion at hand?

Yep.

Umm...ok. How does that contribute to a discussion on whether morals are relative to a culture or not?

Athon

Morals are often relative to culture, but I disagree that this is the best that can be achieved.

My point was that once an individual becomes aware of new information, what is "right" or "wrong" changes, because of rational reasoning. Therefore, if more individuals had the same information and were rational, then they would consider many of the same behaviours "right" and "wrong" as each other, independent of their particular culture.

(BTW, the title of this thread is "Cultural Relativism (or now more accurately Equivalencism) and Scepticism", not "Are morals relative to culture?";))

[athon]

Morals are often relative to culture, but I disagree that this is the best that can be achieved.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain further?

My point was that once an individual becomes aware of new information, what is "right" or "wrong" changes, because of rational reasoning.

If 'right' and 'wrong' are relative to an individual's values, and those values don't exist on an objective level, how would new information necessarily change that? If an individual places no value in rational reasoning (and a lot of people don't) or don't do it effectively, how would this make any impact on their values at all?

Therefore, if more individuals had the same information and were rational, then they would consider many of the same behaviours "right" and "wrong" as each other, independent of their particular culture.

Only if they shared the same value in rational thinking. This would be directly related to the culture they subscribe to.

(BTW, the title of this thread is "Cultural Relativism (or now more accurately Equivalencism) and Scepticism", not "Are morals relative to culture?";))

But moral relativism is a subset of cultural relativism, hence is relative to this discussion. Although I do concede there is more to C.R. than that.

Athon

[Dancing David]

(To Dancing David: Practical argumentation, which analyzes a belief in things that aught not be believed in and the structures surrounding them.
And Elements of Moral Philosophy, which examines... the elements of moral philosophy :p.)

Thanks, funny how you just ignore the debate and then whip out a class. Yeah, well i see your class and a raise you a library.

;)


I have three doctorates of philosophy who disagree with you, and I tend to side with what Ive been told by them, aside from being more educated they seem to be more openminded/truthminded.

Great so you are not a sceptic, I raise your three philosphers by a thousand anthroplogists.

Philososphers are like facts you can get them to mean anything.


1. I defined what cultural relativism is. A system under which there is no morality, only what a particular society thinks.

And that is a political , moralistic interpretation. there are others that you could be ignoring.

Morals are not universal either, duh.

[Dancing David]

It does in fact say there is no morality. There can be no morality. Morality cannot exist as a singular entity within cultural relativism, there can only be moralities. If there was morality then it would be a singular entity, and thus universal now wouldnt it.

Ah , wonderful semantic gyration.

You are ignoring the other uses of the phrase cultural relativism. So does that make you open or closed minded.

Just because your clique of philosophers agree what the term means we all have to bow to your superior system. Just like the god followers.

Fantastic.

Ex. "There is no truth." Whats wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with it, language is a self referencing symbol set. there is no inherent truth in any human thoughts and perceptions. there are some thoughts and perceptions that have a higher validity when compared to the assumed external reality.


"Explain whats not very smart." Really? You cant see how saying that societies have a universal right to decide for themselves contradicts cultural relativism?

Only because you stick to your definition as the only one. there are others.

Much less how it contradicts what you yourself said, which yes it is "might makes right", meaning that a larger society can take that "right that every society has" and just toss it in the trash.


Why are you incapable of understanding this. If the majority of a society thinks something is right, as morality is only a function of society, under cultural relativism it IS RIGHT, absolutely, within that society. What are you bringing in objective moral standards for? Fun?

please just ignore the discussion will you and argue from your POV that the way you use words is the only way they are used.

Some sceptic.


And no no no no. A society cannot progress. Progress implies direction, how can you have a direction if there is no objective standard?

Well duh. That one seems good to me. Progress can only be measured against a standard.

Progressivism one of SJ Gould's errors of thinking.

You say in context to that society's morals, too bad C.R. says that slavery is absolutely right, so long as the majority of people in the practicing society think so. You cannot progress if there is nothing to progress toward or away from.

No that is what you define CR as meaning. there are other people using other definitions. It is a nomenclature that crosses many subjects. But please insist that your philosophical use is the only one.

Let us understand, seeing as youre having difficulty. Under C.R. a society's current moral code is absolutely right.

Show your work, you have assumed that, you are using it as an axiom. There are other uses of the phrase.

Past moral codes are absolutely right. Future moral codes are absolutely right. So long as their within the culture that they pertain to.

No, you are new to the board, take a deep breath, chill out, and participate in the discussion. It is a common system on this board that all values are relative. Duh.

There is no basis within or without of the society to say that theyre any better or worse than anything else.

Duh, chill out dude.



Saying that something is moral only in context to your society. If your society is ignorant of genocide, doesnt know about it, what it is, etc, then its not wrong.

No that just ignores the fact that a label is a label, the value of a human life is personal, group, social and cultural matrix. Duh.

Ignorance of a topic therefore equates to the topic being morally neutral, regardless of what it is. The Holocaust, before we were aware, therefore wasnt wrong, being that the group in power and majority found it acceptable it was in fact right.

Great now you really have no idea what you are saying.

If one says that the value called suffering is not something that one wishes to be imposed on others then it matters not if one is aware of an event or not. The value is one that a person is still free to make.


Intolerant. There is no answer to this question through C.R., hence why I asked it. I phrased it differently then I should have however, it should have been "What attitude should a person take toward an intolerant culture."

You assume that apriori there will be an answer, gosh the interdependent nature of existence is just obliviated by you. And the fact that no relevant communication exists outside a reference set.

Words and more words.


About dropping right, you seem not to understand what youre saying. Within a culture, anything understood to be right by the majority is right, completely, absolutely.

What a crock, you assert something and on your use of words we must agree. So you think that you already know what the words have to mean for every one. that sure is convenient for you.




One numbered response. #8 of my initial response. In order to clarify I need some examples from you, that should have been quite clear.

The Eskimo example I was using wasnt asserting right or wrong now was it? I was just posing the question, and I really dont care how you feel about it.

Yeah the fact that you only care what you think might give us evidence that you are close minded and most likely not a critical thinker.

Cultural relativism isnt what you feel, its a system of morality, or as you like to synonymously say, a principle of approach for analyzing other culture's morality.

gosh , still pounding that argument from authority. Who dies and made you Daniel Webster?

I refrained from judging entirely, because its not the point of this topic nor of the question itself.

Again you look the fool, just keep asserting you know what is right. that is a fine sceptic you are.

On this forum if one is going to use a narrow jargon and demand that other people acknowledge it, it is customary to sate that you are using a narrow jargon and not just wave your arms and demand people agree with you because you think you are right.

A zero for scepticism and a zero for critical thought. A slightly higher score for social skill.



Your aggressive stance on an issue which youre clearly not very educated in doesnt help your case.

And I take that back, a zero for social skills. And still an argument from authority. You must be new to the board.

Welcome anyway. I bet you huff off in a tizzy when you find that other people just won't use words the way you demand they should be used.

[Dancing David]

Lets see you back up anything with anything other than your mindless gibbering. Youve posted a link to a definition thats common knowledge, your vast contribution is duly noted. Ive not evaded you, only sidestepped the more pointless portions of your discourse. Youve evaded the more clear examples of the issue however, or just refused to think about what youre blabbering about. I respect that youre a teacher, according to your profile, however Id think that as one youde be keen on seeking out ignorance, especially within yourself.

I will bring it by, so I can come back and give their responses then hear you prattle on more in ignorance.

Cultural relativism says nothing about anything, its a positive and a negative at the same time. Like subjectivism, if I say youre wrong Im right, problem is youre right in your position that youre right as well, therefore the both of us might not have said anything and accomplished markedly more. Youre seeking to form an analysis of something based on an analysis based on an analysis.
- Evaluating morality on the basis of a morality thats formed on the basis of individual morality, which is itself entirely irrelevant to anything but itself.

Ive remained objective, your aggressive stance prompts a likewise stance from myself however.


Ah more argument from authority and rather woo is devotion to just demanding others agree with you,

You would rather just dismiss other people points of view and then you assert that you are right.

Negative score for scepticism and critical thought.

Welcome to the forum newbie, I predict you haven't the fortitude to stay here once you realize that others won't agree with you being right just because you think you are right. Most troll get real pissed when others don't stroke their egos for them. But it would appear you brought enough ego for evry one.

I could be wrong.

Here is a hint, this is a sceptics forum, you are asserting you are right and not participating in the discussion. A sure signs of religous devotion to narrow beliefs and a closed mind.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain further?

In the extreme case of complete knowledge of the result of every possible course of action there should be a sub-set of actions that result in more optimal outcomes than others.

"Optimal" means the maximum reward or benefit obtained summed over everyone effected by the course of an action, as in the prisoner dilemma.

If 'right' and 'wrong' are relative to an individual's values, and those values don't exist on an objective level, how would new information necessarily change that?

But values do exist on an objective level; they are encoded by connections of neurons in a brain. With sufficiently advanced technology what an individual values could be changed precisely. At the moment we (i.e. anybody wishing to change someones opinion or belief) rely on persuasive arguments and evidence. How is the latter not just a poor attempt at the former?

If an individual places no value in rational reasoning (and a lot of people don't) or don't do it effectively, how would this make any impact on their values at all?

All free individuals can perform and value rational thought to some extent. Those that don't (and have survived) are locked up in psychiatric hospitals.

This comes back to my question: Are moral principles, rationally derived by individuals with correct (to the best of their knowledge) information to be equated with those derived by individuals using likely to be incorrect information or from guessing?

Is the fact we cannot have complete certainty we a "right" mean that those using even less information, or information likely to be incorrect are just as likely to be "right"?

Only if they shared the same value in rational thinking. This would be directly related to the culture they subscribe to.

Rational thought is an innate ability in healthy humans. Are there any problems that are better solved, on average, by guessing?

[Dancing David]

Yes, Im not arguing that there are objective standards am I? Im simply looking at the problems with C.R.

I havnt tried to assert anything, whats the deal with everyone assuming Im an objectivist?

As a side note, it would be pointless to discuss when theres not even an understanding of the base issues of the topic from at least one of the other participants. If the topic progresses far enough Ill be happy to talk about it.

Woo woo woo woo.

I am right because I am right.
I am right because I know more than you.
I won't debate things because I know i am right.

And already fading from the field because you can't engage in critical thought.

Woo score rising.

[Dancing David]

Did I not just say Ive refrained from stating what I believe?

Troll score rising, attention seeking!

[Dancing David]

I am afraid youre wrong. The only thing I have to do to disprove C.R. is show one thing that is present in all cultures, thus constituting a universal. There are no universals in C.R. because that would represent an overarching moral value.

A simple example, find me a culture in which dishonestly is promoted and valued. Not sneakyness, not underhanded tactics, outright dishonestly. Such that if you ask "wheres the bathroom" you might as well have not opened your mouth because youre not going to get an accurate answer. Such that if you went to a doctor, who somehow managed to complete his education being told nothing but lies, to be diagnosed you couldnt expect an honest answer. Im not aware of such a society, maybe you are. Would dishonesty then be a universally disparaged?

Perhaps I should put something silly forward for you to justify C.R. with. Find me some moral codes that exists solely within a single or limited number of societies. Also, be careful not to confuse something such as burial vs consuming the dead as instances such as this would constitute different cultural customs exemplifying the same moral value of honoring the dead.

Just a simple example. C.R. has no place in reality except perhaps in anthropological studies, comparing the thoughts of a particular group to another without making a judgment, or something like that.

I find it interesting all this hostility within a philosophical discussion, philosophy whose purpose is to promote reasonable discussion and thought.


Ah, a true troll. Priceless, maybe you will last but i doubt it.

Agree with me because I am right, not much of an argument.

[athon]

But values do exist on an objective level; they are encoded by connections of neurons in a brain.

That's quite a claim. I might be willing to concede that there is some genetic influence of values, such as self-preservation, however it's quite a claim to say 'values do exist encoded by connections of neurons in a brain'.

I'd need to see some fairly good evidence that values are 'nature' more than they are 'nurture'. I would expect a child born to an African couple and raised in America would have more collectivist values, in which case, and I'm confident that is not the case.

This comes back to my question: Are moral principles, rationally derived by individuals with correct (to the best of their knowledge) information to be equated with those derived by individuals using likely to be incorrect information or from guessing?[/auote]

Moral principles aren't rationally formed, though. Although I concede they might be rationally changed. They are more readily rationalised post hoc by most people.

But, going on your question, if you value behaviours which are based on rational thought based on your cultural experience, then you would see that as 'right'. I agree that it is a rather useful value in the scheme of things, but as to whether it is a 'right' value, that can only be said in such a context. Removed of that context (i.e., that it is a useful value for making decisions with predictable outcomes) 'right' or 'wrong' has no relevance.

[quote]Is the fact we cannot have complete certainty we a "right" mean that those using even less information, or information likely to be incorrect are just as likely to be "right"?

Right, when not used in a given context, has zero meaning. That's the whole point of C.R. You're using 'amount of information' as the context, hence why we can only say 'yes, those using the information would be right in an information-weighted context'. But without that qualifier, 'right' has no meaning.

Rational thought is an innate ability in healthy humans. Are there any problems that are better solved, on average, by guessing?

Again, you're proposing a context and a set of values. The value is in solving problems rationally, and the context is in a situation using good information. Believe it or not, some cultures don't value solving problems rationally; some might believe in following omens for making decisions. Good information is therefore only relevant in the context of an 'omen'. Is it useful and does it provide predictable outcomes? A fair question to ask, but again is not a matter of 'right' and 'wrong', as much as 'useful' or 'not useful'.

Those semantics matter when one looks at the connotations of moral rightness.

Athon

[Koshy]

Woo woo woo woo.

I am right because I am right.
I am right because I know more than you.
I won't debate things because I know i am right.

And already fading from the field because you can't engage in critical thought.

Woo score rising.

Honestly. I've confronted the issue headone. All you fellows keep doing is saying "there are multiple definitions," "lets discuss group morality one moment then switch to the individual," "lets make fun of the guy who knows what the concrete idea is." Right.

Somehow saying this makes me on a high horse or an authority > We're not talking about what everyone wants C.R. to be. We are talking about the concrete philosophical construct, which I just came away from learning and reading about, yet of course you're right. I know it's so terribly wrong to actually talk about the subject at hand.

"So now they are ideals? You're making this up as you go along." - Athon
Maybe your education consisted primarily of lessons on how to be pedantic.
You keep bringing up differences between synonymous words.

Cultural relativism is not just about studying a culture's morality. In that a culture has a morality cultural relativism is a tool to help you understand how that morality works and what it is founded on within a culture but cultural relativism also deals with (as examples) the entertainment that a given culture deals has, the family structure, the legal system, the financial systems and so on.

Yes, which is why it doesn't really have a place describing morality from more formal position, which is what I was working toward with this herd of cats.

The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable.
Most definitions along with the course of the conversation here keep drifting back and forth between philosophical and anthropological, as I said the only place it has a serious place to be is in anthropological studies.

Lack of concern on this by everyone else of course highlights just how stupid I am though.

Thanks, funny how you just ignore the debate and then whip out a class. Yeah, well i see your class and a raise you a library.


Good god, you asked what classes, and you whine when I answer your question. Thanks.

Only because you stick to your definition as the only one. there are others.
Can you please explain how you're supposed to have a conversation on a topic when there are multiple definitions being used? If for instance I was using the definition of pancake as a four sided geometric figure, it would be ever so slightly pointless to talk to anyone using any of the how ever many definitions they want wouldn't it.

Are we talking anthropology or philosophy? We could be discussing dentistry with the same terms and sliding back and forth and accomplish the same thing.

Great now you really have no idea what you are saying.
What a convincing argument. Does C.R. not mean this? Since were using the moral philosophic anthropological gobbldygoop definition.

What a crock, you assert something and on your use of words we must agree. So you think that you already know what the words have to mean for every one. that sure is convenient for you.
Yeah, thats the great thing about working with a ton of definitions, you can whine about everything and still not be right.

And thats all I have time for at the moment.

Eta: Ill compile a little list of sources so I can be in the in crowd and post some links, but not at this moment.

[Koshy]

Troll score rising, attention seeking!

Yet another convincing argument, turns out I had a little more time.

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's quite a claim. I might be willing to concede that there is some genetic influence of values, such as self-preservation, however it's quite a claim to say 'values do exist encoded by connections of neurons in a brain'.

I'd need to see some fairly good evidence that values are 'nature' more than they are 'nurture'. I would expect a child born to an African couple and raised in America would have more collectivist values, in which case, and I'm confident that is not the case.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, which was not that values are hard-wired from birth, rather that when someone makes a value judgment they "get" the values from neurons in their brain. If the connections between those neurons were changed, then their values would change.

Moral principles aren't rationally formed, though. Although I concede they might be rationally changed. They are more readily rationalised post hoc by most people.

I agree that is often the case.

But, going on your question, if you value behaviours which are based on rational thought based on your cultural experience, then you would see that as 'right'. I agree that it is a rather useful value in the scheme of things, but as to whether it is a 'right' value, that can only be said in such a context. Removed of that context (i.e., that it is a useful value for making decisions with predictable outcomes) 'right' or 'wrong' has no relevance.

Right, when not used in a given context, has zero meaning. That's the whole point of C.R. You're using 'amount of information' as the context, hence why we can only say 'yes, those using the information would be right in an information-weighted context'. But without that qualifier, 'right' has no meaning.

Again, you're proposing a context and a set of values. The value is in solving problems rationally, and the context is in a situation using good information. Believe it or not, some cultures don't value solving problems rationally; some might believe in following omens for making decisions. Good information is therefore only relevant in the context of an 'omen'. Is it useful and does it provide predictable outcomes? A fair question to ask, but again is not a matter of 'right' and 'wrong', as much as 'useful' or 'not useful'.

Those semantics matter when one looks at the connotations of moral rightness.

Athon

So:

Should sceptics go wading in and tell a cultural group that their witchdoctor is full of it and present evidence why?

or to put it another way:

Should sceptics go wading in and tell a cultural group that Sylvia Browne is full of it and present evidence why?

or even more generally:

If a cultural group does not value rational thought on an issue, what right do sceptics have (or is it "right") to try to change them to value it?

[Darat]

In the extreme case of complete knowledge of the result of every possible course of action there should be a sub-set of actions that result in more optimal outcomes than others.

"Optimal" means the maximum reward or benefit obtained summed over everyone effected by the course of an action, as in the prisoner dilemma.

...snip...

Perhaps, in principle at least, however whilst you give a good definition of what you mean by optimal your definition still seems to me to be resting on an assumption that such a goal is in itself objective rather than it just being one of the many possible goals there are.



But values do exist on an objective level; they are encoded by connections of neurons in a brain. With sufficiently advanced technology what an individual values could be changed precisely. At the moment we (i.e. anybody wishing to change someones opinion or belief) rely on persuasive arguments and evidence. How is the latter not just a poor attempt at the former?

I agree with you that there is no supernatural element to things like values however your argument would seem to support the view that there are not "absolute" values.


...snip....

This comes back to my question: Are moral principles, rationally derived by individuals with correct (to the best of their knowledge) information to be equated with those derived by individuals using likely to be incorrect information or from guessing?

...snip...

Turn this back on you - you think what SB does is morally wrong, yet I explained a principle that someone using as rational thought and correct information as you do could conclude that what she dos is morally "right".

[Dancing David]

A simple example, find me a culture in which dishonestly is promoted and valued. Not sneakyness, not underhanded tactics, outright dishonestly.


Some mighty narrow goals posts there, dishonesty is a common social value and the demonstration of it is endless. Funny how you use a word and then again tell us how we have to use the word.

The social acceptibility of dishonesty is obvious:

"Do these jeans make me look fat?",
the common social value that when someone ask you "How are you doing?", "How is it going?", in many social contexts dishonesty is the norm.

But it is funny how you set up the question the way you did.

Let us see, how about the society of smugglers where they use deception and lie when they are asked if they are smuggling. It also extends to the common practice of americans who smuggle perscription drugs from Mexico.

There are many examples of how dishonesty is a social norm or value.

The lack of a trait does not establish a universal trait either.

[Dancing David]

Honestly. I've confronted the issue headone. All you fellows keep doing is saying "there are multiple definitions," "lets discuss group morality one moment then switch to the individual," "lets make fun of the guy who knows what the concrete idea is." Right.

You are the insisting that the only use of the word is your use of the word. I don't recall that parameter being set by Ivor, but there you are insisting that it has been.

Argument by assertion is a weak argument.

Just because a philosopher uses a term a certain way does not mean that is the only use of the term, on this forum the convention would be 'using the term in philosophy CR means...'.
This is a coomon issue in many threads, on almost any subject at almost any time. Asserting that you have an authoritative use of the word is fine. You have not made that clear nor has the OP and Ivor or the other participants made a point of it. You so far are the only one insisting that you are the only one who knows how to use a word.


Somehow saying this makes me on a high horse or an authority >

You are making an argument from authority, in a thread on psychology the same issue arises and people like me have to resort to 'in psychology this term is used as such and suchg' that is the way it is on the board.

We're not talking about what everyone wants C.R. to be. We are talking about the concrete philosophical construct,

No that is what you are going on about and rather rudely insisting that you are an authority of some sort. Even just now.
I suppose you can tell us all how to use the word and we can all just ignore you, if that is what you wish.

Welcome to the forum.

which I just came away from learning and reading about, yet of course you're right. I know it's so terribly wrong to actually talk about the subject at hand.

There you are being a silly again. You are discussing a specific jargon and usage and insisting that is the only usage of the word. Please do continue, if you wish to be an authority and look foolish , go right ahead.

If you want to say 'in philsophy cultural relativism means this..' then you won't look as though you are just demanding people do as you wish.

If you want we can discuss how the word is used in many contexts and you are insisting that yours is the only context.



"So now they are ideals? You're making this up as you go along." - Athon
Maybe your education consisted primarily of lessons on how to be pedantic.
You keep bringing up differences between synonymous words.




Yes, which is why it doesn't really have a place describing morality from more formal position, which is what I was working toward with this herd of cats.


Most definitions along with the course of the conversation here keep drifting back and forth between philosophical and anthropological, as I said the only place it has a serious place to be is in anthropological studies.

Lack of concern on this by everyone else of course highlights just how stupid I am though.



Good god, you asked what classes, and you whine when I answer your question. Thanks.

Yes I did and your behavior was also horrible, perhaps you act as though no one else has an education. I asked you which class you had been in.

Reread your posts and see how much is about how we should agree with you because of your learning. I am not mocking you, you used a humor icon and I responded with humor.

Whatever.



Can you please explain how you're supposed to have a conversation on a topic when there are multiple definitions being used? If for instance I was using the definition of pancake as a four sided geometric figure, it would be ever so slightly pointless to talk to anyone using any of the how ever many definitions they want wouldn't it.

Argument by analogy and not a very good one, also refered to as a straw arugument.

No one is telling you that there is not a philosophical definition of CR, there is, there are other uses as well. Oh Too Bad.

You are new to this forum in scepticism it would appear that 20% of the time is spent clarifying terminology.


Are we talking anthropology or philosophy? We could be discussing dentistry with the same terms and sliding back and forth and accomplish the same thing.


What a convincing argument. Does C.R. not mean this? Since were using the moral philosophic anthropological gobbldygoop definition.

Did you ask for my use or did you just insist that we have to all do exactly what you think we should do?

How is that critical thinking or discussion?



Yeah, thats the great thing about working with a ton of definitions, you can whine about everything and still not be right.

Or you whine and pout and stomp your little feet that you are the one with the sole right to use a word the way you want it used.

Welcome to the forum, again about 20% of conversations is spent in terminology.

Look at "Is Light Matter?" over in the science forum, it will show you what I mean. Or if you really want some fun, read "LightCreatedLife".


And thats all I have time for at the moment.

Eta: Ill compile a little list of sources so I can be in the in crowd and post some links, but not at this moment.


Look Koshy, I have no issue with the philosphical use of CR, but that is what I am asking you.

Why is that the only use of the word? A lot of time is spent on the forum with epople engaging in "only I know the correct use of a word" and this is a common problem in discussion, you can use the word any way you want but if you insist that your use of the owrd is the only use then communication will not occur.

You are also new to the forums, the relative nature of morals and values is a constant subject here. You can use whatever system you want I will try to follow along, sort of sounds like a form of utilitarianism/pragmatism, but I am sure that is a generalization. But the issue is this cultural relatisim exists in many forms.

[quixotecoyote]

In the definition argument. I disagree that the definition of CR is substantially different across different disciplines. The usage and focus may change, but we are still talking about cultural values being internal to that culture with no set of objective standards to rate different cultures by. You can rephrase and add more shiny bits, but in philosophy or anthropology, you'll still have this kernel.

[Darat]

...snip...

So:

Should sceptics go wading in and tell a cultural group that their witchdoctor is full of it and present evidence why?

or to put it another way:

Should sceptics go wading in and tell a cultural group that Sylvia Browne is full of it and present evidence why?

or even more generally:

If a cultural group does not value rational thought on an issue, what right do sceptics have (or is it "right") to try to change them to value it?

With my value system my answer is that it is on the whole (but not always) best to try and explain the facts as I understand them to others if I believe they either don't know those facts or don't understand them.

So in the witchdoctor scenario I would try to explain that disease is not caused by spirits or curses but a well understood mechanism and using that knowledge we are able to treat more people a lot more successfully than we can using a system based on non-supported ideas of spirits and curses.

(Then when he's fallen asleep from boredom....)

[Earthborn]

My point was that once an individual becomes aware of new information, what is "right" or "wrong" changes, because of rational reasoning.When an individual becomes aware of new information, s/he also becomes part of another culture. As can be read in the cultural anthropology tutorial I linked to earlier, "culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns". So as soon as someone learns something from another, they share culture.

Therefore, if more individuals had the same information and were rational, then they would consider many of the same behaviours "right" and "wrong" as each other, independent of their particular culture.The problem is that you equate "culture" with "national culture" or "local culture". But people can be part of many cultures at the same time. Every group of people with common learnt behaviour patterns has a culture; a scientist in China has a Chinese national culture, but also an international scientific culture.

Morals are often relative to culture, but I disagree that this is the best that can be achieved.The best that can be achieved is the development of a global superculture, in which certain ideas and moral values are shared by huge numbers of people all over the world. A superculture in which all national cultures are subcultures. Such a development is already fully in progress. Hardly any culture is still isolated from the rest of the world.

Something similar happened when national cultures developed. Prior to the 19th century or so, people primerally identified with their local cultures, but as travel and communications improved, people started to identify with their country.

Morality is about learning right from wrong, and all learning is culture.
Morality cannot exist without culture. But cultures can expand, they can encompass many other cultures.

[Koshy]

You are the insisting that the only use of the word is your use of the word. I don't recall that parameter being set by Ivor, but there you are insisting that it has been.

Argument by assertion is a weak argument.

Just because a philosopher uses a term a certain way does not mean that is the only use of the term, on this forum the convention would be 'using the term in philosophy CR means...'.
This is a coomon issue in many threads, on almost any subject at almost any time. Asserting that you have an authoritative use of the word is fine. You have not made that clear nor has the OP and Ivor or the other participants made a point of it. You so far are the only one insisting that you are the only one who knows how to use a word.

You are making an argument from authority, in a thread on psychology the same issue arises and people like me have to resort to 'in psychology this term is used as such and suchg' that is the way it is on the board.

No that is what you are going on about and rather rudely insisting that you are an authority of some sort. Even just now.
I suppose you can tell us all how to use the word and we can all just ignore you, if that is what you wish.

Welcome to the forum.

There you are being a silly again. You are discussing a specific jargon and usage and insisting that is the only usage of the word. Please do continue, if you wish to be an authority and look foolish , go right ahead.

If you want to say 'in philsophy cultural relativism means this..' then you won't look as though you are just demanding people do as you wish.

If you want we can discuss how the word is used in many contexts and you are insisting that yours is the only context.

Yes I did and your behavior was also horrible, perhaps you act as though no one else has an education. I asked you which class you had been in.

Reread your posts and see how much is about how we should agree with you because of your learning. I am not mocking you, you used a humor icon and I responded with humor.

Whatever.

Argument by analogy and not a very good one, also refered to as a straw arugument.

No one is telling you that there is not a philosophical definition of CR, there is, there are other uses as well. Oh Too Bad.

You are new to this forum in scepticism it would appear that 20% of the time is spent clarifying terminology.

Did you ask for my use or did you just insist that we have to all do exactly what you think we should do?

How is that critical thinking or discussion?

Or you whine and pout and stomp your little feet that you are the one with the sole right to use a word the way you want it used.

Welcome to the forum, again about 20% of conversations is spent in terminology.

Look at "Is Light Matter?" over in the science forum, it will show you what I mean. Or if you really want some fun, read "LightCreatedLife".



Look Koshy, I have no issue with the philosphical use of CR, but that is what I am asking you.

Why is that the only use of the word? A lot of time is spent on the forum with epople engaging in "only I know the correct use of a word" and this is a common problem in discussion, you can use the word any way you want but if you insist that your use of the owrd is the only use then communication will not occur.

You are also new to the forums, the relative nature of morals and values is a constant subject here. You can use whatever system you want I will try to follow along, sort of sounds like a form of utilitarianism/pragmatism, but I am sure that is a generalization. But the issue is this cultural relatisim exists in many forms.

I just came back from speaking with Dr.Korcz and Dr.Trigg. Dr.Korcz being the department head and Dr.Trigg being well, a doctor of philosophy just thrown in for good measure.

Before I reference them, yes, I will cite my education on the matter, of course you all would discredit me in the same manner regardless of if I did or didn't, and I expect even with the positions of the men I am referring to you will still refute, but thats not my problem after that point.

Dr.Trigg.

The notion of society must be able to be understood independently of the notion of morality. With C.R. the only way to understand a particular society is through its morality likewise the only way to understand morality is through the society to which it belongs, which equates to circular reasoning and an inseparable issue of society. This is a more subtle example.

The actual concept of C.R. is self defeating, as I've said and to which Dr.Trigg and Korcz agree. In stating C.R. there is a contradiction. All societies have their own moral principle, this is stating a universal law pertaining to morals. So the actual ideal of Cultural Relativism is a self contradiction.

Another example is a rehash of the same example I already gave, however I asked him about it just to make sure I was clear. "There is no truth" or "there is no objective truth." is self defeating in the same way that C.R. is, notice that if the statement is true it is contradicting itself. There is one truth, that there is no truth, under that particular statement, which is the same problem ran into by C.R.

Further speaking on the issues of defining a society. If France were to lose part of its territory, would the culture no longer exist? Likewise can society be defined by means of language? America is a multilingual country, is it a single society? Most nations have present in them multiple languages.
In C.R. there is an additional problem present, morality is geographical, and societies are defined by their morality, such that, if a community from a society such as France was absorbed into a society such as Germany, the same morals wouldn't apply because they are no longer a part of the same societal group that they were affiliated with. They are now located within a different geographical area with a different corresponding population and thus a different corresponding set of moral rules. The issue regarding C.R. and the variability of morality depending on location can be expressed through the following example.
Community A thinks abortion is wrong. Community B thinks abortion is right. Therefore a person moving moving from community A to community B would assume the moral standard that abortion is right, if C.R. is correct. This isn't the way that a reasonable person would say that morality works. And indeed nor does philosophy.

Moving on.

Dr.Korcz.

Dr.Korcz didn't contribute as much, but what he did is still quite interesting.

There is another flaw with C.R. regarding person belonging to multiple cultures. What situation does the reasoning in C.R. place this anomaly in.

It could follow that absolutely anything could be right under C.R., such as again the Holocaust or any other number of things.

Also he gave me the example again the inability to label progress, due to there being no measure.



Definitions do matter, as does an understanding of the topic. Im not being pompous, but when two professors have steered me into the same commentary Ive already made.... C.R. is flawed.

Heres my link by the way, since its required to join the party around these parts. Note that it pertains to anthropology, woe is me that the definitions in context to philosophy or anthropology actually do make a difference. The issue being discussed in this topic however is philosophy, and is actually moral relativism, the two terms are such a mess today that they are largely interchangeable however. As I said before, Cultural Relativism's place is in anthropology, now to wait till someone says something inaccurate in response to this.
Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)

Also, the university name is the "University of Louisiana at Lafayette." Dr. Korcz is the department head of the philosophy department and a very friendly and intelligent guy.
Dr.Trigg is a former Englander who taught at Edinburgh before moving here for whatever reason.

Don't take this as an aggressive response to you Dancing Danny. I didn't trim your post, I do find it interesting the double standard that is consistently applied however, an example good enough to be used in support of C.R. is an example thats not good enough to criticize C.R. with.

Also "if you want to say in philosophy C.R. is this." Suppose I do. What have you and the others been saying this whole time? Going back and forth with an undefined issue is..... Anyway, Ill leave for a bit, as its the weekend, and the weekend means Dr.Who, pizza, the couch, the movies, etc. wheeeeeeeee.

[Earthborn]

Further speaking on the issues of defining a society. If France were to lose part of its territory, would the culture no longer exist?Of course not. The culture continues to exist, because culture is learnt behaviour; as long as people don't forget everything they know, they will still have a culture. Their society even continues to exist as long as they stay living together.

Likewise can society be defined by means of language?No. Society is defined as "people living together". Though obviously, they will often share a common language as they will need to be able to communicate. Language is a part of people's culture.

America is a multilingual country, is it a single society?Yes, but it is also a group of smaller societies.

In C.R. there is an additional problem present, morality is geographicalCultures are not necessarily geographical, so there is no reason why morality would be if it depends on culture.

if a community from a society such as France was absorbed into a society such as Germany, the same morals wouldn't apply because they are no longer a part of the same societal group that they were affiliated with.Only if the French were all displaced and replaced by other people could you claim that it is no longer the same societal group. If they are not replaced, and their memories were not wiped, they will continue to display many of the same learnt behaviours they did before, and therefore continue to have the same culture.

It is important to note that in reality the whole of France has been absorbed into a larger society; that of the EU. France has many shares many cultural moral values with the rest of Europe; values that are often said to be "European". Also, the whole of Europe has been absorbed into a larger society, that of the World.

Community A thinks abortion is wrong. Community B thinks abortion is right. Therefore a person moving moving from community A to community B would assume the moral standard that abortion is right, if C.R. is correct.No, because this person takes a cultural background with her. If she is accepted into Community B she becomes part of the culture of Community B, but as long as her memories aren't wiped, she continues to be part of the culture of Community A.

Culture is learnt behaviour. It is not fixed to specific locations, it is part of what the background of individual people.

There is another flaw with C.R. regarding person belonging to multiple cultures. What situation does the reasoning in C.R. place this anomaly in.It is not an anomaly. Each and every person on Earth belongs to a myriad of cultures. The culture of one's profession, one's national and local cultures, one's cultures of people with shared interests, one's cultures of people with whom you speak a common language... etc...

It could follow that absolutely anything could be right under C.R., such as again the Holocaust or any other number of things.The Nazis considered the Holocaust right. The global culture that quickly arose after the Second World War does not consider it right.

Also he gave me the example again the inability to label progress, due to there being no measure.Cultures are cumulative; people can learn new things without necessarily forgetting all the old things. The more we learn, the more progress we make.

Im not being pompous, but when two professors have steered me into the same commentary Ive already made.... C.R. is flawed.I find it more likely the understanding of these two professors is flawed. The only way Cultural Relativity could be flawed is if people's actions cannot be understood by assuming they have the ability to learn. But people are able to learn, and their behaviours should be understood from the context of the things they have learnt (including what they have learnt about morality).

[athon]

Dr.Trigg.

The notion of society must be able to be understood independently of the notion of morality. With C.R. the only way to understand a particular society is through its morality likewise the only way to understand morality is through the society to which it belongs, which equates to circular reasoning and an inseparable issue of society. This is a more subtle example.

This is a common criticism of C.R., and the one you've been trying to articulate all along. However it is flawed in its simplisitic approach.

What is it you are trying to understand about a social group? Often, it is its behaviour. To understand the relationships of certain behaviours, one can define them as moralistic or immoralistic, but only in the context of their own values. Those values are subjective, often based on the perceived needs of the community. That 'perceived' descriptor is important in its subjectivity.

How do you understand the values? There are many contributions - the environment they are in, their history, behaviours of other cultures within and around that social group...it's not a simple case of 'morals' and 'society'. Each is complicated by a diverse range of influences which impact on one another. Neither can be understood by filtering it directly one's own subjective social history.

All societies have their own moral principle, this is stating a universal law pertaining to morals. So the actual ideal of Cultural Relativism is a self contradiction.

All societies have values developed from their perceived needs, influenced by their physical and social environment. Is there a feedback? Indeed. However this feedback does not make it circular reasoning.

The question of whether there are universal values based on common human physiology is a different matter. For instance, we are wired to be self preserved. Values often arise from objective influences. This is not to say the value itself is objective.

"There is no truth" or "there is no objective truth." is self defeating in the same way that C.R. is, notice that if the statement is true it is contradicting itself. There is one truth, that there is no truth, under that particular statement, which is the same problem ran into by C.R.

I've noticed many philosophers fall into such semantic traps. It's like scientists who described their research as providing 'proof'. Proof is a mathematical term. Nothing is proven in science. Hypotheses are supplied with evidence until the weight of it satisfies any rational mind that nothing else can account for an observation. In philosophy, the term truth is similarly abused.

It is 'true' that 1 + 1 = 2. It is also 'true' that I like ice cream. The word true is understood in both situations, however they are not analogous contexts. In my opinion, the word truth causes more problems than it's worth.

In the end, one must keep coming back to the idea that cultural behaviours can only be understood in relation to one another in the context of that cultural history. Their perception of any truth (regardless of there existing axioms and the like) also must be viewed likewise.

Further speaking on the issues of defining a society. If France were to lose part of its territory, would the culture no longer exist? Likewise can society be defined by means of language? America is a multilingual country, is it a single society? Most nations have present in them multiple languages.

See Earthborn's post on what 'culture' means. I still think you don't quite understand it, if you're asking questions such as these.

In C.R. there is an additional problem present, morality is geographical, and societies are defined by their morality, such that, if a community from a society such as France was absorbed into a society such as Germany, the same morals wouldn't apply because they are no longer a part of the same societal group that they were affiliated with. They are now located within a different geographical area with a different corresponding population and thus a different corresponding set of moral rules. The issue regarding C.R. and the variability of morality depending on location can be expressed through the following example.

Further evidence you don't understand the term 'culture'. Because it is often shared by a geologically local population doesn't mean it is defined by it. To understand the behaviour of that group when removed and placed elsewhere, you still need to look at their culture, not that of its adoptive region.

There is another flaw with C.R. regarding person belonging to multiple cultures. What situation does the reasoning in C.R. place this anomaly in.

No different. You would need to look at the behaviour in the context of those cultures. As I said before, 'culture' continues down to the individual. Understanding an individual's actions relates to their own personal values, which links in with their own culture. That culture is developed under their influence of all of the social groups they shared in. In that regards, culture has a multitude of facets, and can describe all manner of shared behaviours. Many behaviours are common to regions, which is why one can apply culture to a geographical locality.

It could follow that absolutely anything could be right under C.R., such as again the Holocaust or any other number of things.

*sigh* You're just not getting it. There is no objective 'right' which lies outside of a context.

Also he gave me the example again the inability to label progress, due to there being no measure.

Again, progress outside of a context is meaningless. You can progress towards a goal, but that community goal can only be understood in the context of a particular culture shared by that community.

Definitions do matter, as does an understanding of the topic. Im not being pompous, but when two professors have steered me into the same commentary Ive already made.... C.R. is flawed.

This is all a big appeal to authority. You can't defend the position yourself, so you keep saying 'this is what they said'. If you personally can't address the points we raise, then you obviously personally don't know enough about it. By all means offer others opinions, but they don't make the argument.

Note that it pertains to anthropology, woe is me that the definitions in context to philosophy or anthropology actually do make a difference.

Sorry, but they do. If you don't understand why it makes a difference, again maybe you are out of your depth here.

Athon

[Koshy]

Sorry, but they do. If you don't understand why it makes a difference, again maybe you are out of your depth here.

Athon

Lack of ability to detect sarcasm. Why would I not be able to understand what I've been arguing for pretty much this entire time?



Ive already given the actual philosophical view on the matter, philosophy deals in objectives, not what everyone feels like. If something is logically self defeating it is objectively flawed.

You keep saying I'm not getting it when you yourself don't even understand what you're talking about. There is absolute right within C.R., how is this hard to understand? This is the third or fourth time I've went over it. If the majority of a society agrees something is right, it is absolutely right within that society.

I've given the hard philosophical appraisal of C.R. and why it doesn't work, so, unless something interesting that actually pertains to reality rather than everyone's touchy feely thoughts on it I really don't need to say anything else. Feel free to continue on the topic however, nothing will be accomplished of course because nothings actually being discussed.

Philosophy is reason and logic, to reiterate once more, if something logically defeats itself it is unreasonable and can not be true. Thats the view on C.R. Finality.

The discussion isn't really about skepticism of C.R., its just random observations about culture and vague assumptions that don't mean much. The reason that C.R. is a popular up and coming item is because it seems superficially appealing and correct, however whats its analyzed in any serious manner it falls apart.

Quite a few more people believe in religious morality vs cultural relativism, thus making the existence of the supernatural and gods the actual right, but lets not go into that ay. I'm done with the topic for now because there is no serious debate going on. Feel free to criticize my view as arrogant, stupid, ill founded, etc. If someone posts something that pertains to reality I'll pop back in or probably go talk to Dr.Trigg again, maybe someone will formulate something that actually pertains to reasoning and thus be the source of a very fascinating discussion, but it doesn't seem likely so long as the discussion continues along this course.


I would like to recommend a very short book to the lot of you that should bring to light alot of the problems with the position of C.R.
Bernard Williams: Morality an Introduction to Ethics.

And finally.

1.Where does religion end and culture begin?

1.What defines a cultural group? I.e., how many individuals are required and how isolated do they need to be to be classed as having a distinct culture?

2.Aren't we all supposed to now believe all cultures and their beliefs are of equal value, at least within the particular cultures they exist (a.k.a. cultural relativism)?

2. Does (or should) an outsider have any standing within a culture to judge that a particular belief or behaviour is incorrect or wrong, with respect to a member of that cultural group, if that belief or behaviour is generally acceptable to the members of that group?

To Ivor.
1. These are good examples of one of the blatant errors with C.R. There is not a clear way to define clearly a culture or society, unless you rely on morality, but that brings around the circular problem. Morality is a product of society, so the only way to define society, groups, and the like is effectively through their shared morality. There is therefore no way to independently describe a society. If you don't understand this particular problem don't worry about it, it took me a while to understand the implications as well, its a subtle but none the less large problem with C.R.

2. The other inherent problem with C.R. It does indeed say that we should or are supposed to believe this. However, in saying that we should believe all cultures are equal C.R. is imposing a universal law, which is something it says doesn't exist. In addition to this, this is the same problem with subjectivism. If another society embraces a concept, lets say Cultural Irrelativism that states the exact opposite of C.R. it is in fact right and of equal value to the supposedly universally applicable rule of C.R.

And no, a member of another culture has absolutely no grounds to criticize any other culture, regardless of its practices. In fact no member of the society that practices a particular system even has any grounds to protest a problem of morality because they would in truth and reality be going against what C.R. says is right. Because lets remember, that anything the majority says is right is right.

This leads to an interesting example as well within religious morality and the circular nature somewhat reflects the problem with C.R. but is not a complete parallel, but I'll put it here, even though I'm almost 100% positive someone is going to misunderstand it and complain about it.

God. In this example the existence of God is assumed, because to argue against it is utterly futile. A person who believes in God must believe one of the following.
A. An action is right because God commands it.
or
B. God commands an action because it is right.
If an action is right because God commands it then morality becomes completely and totally arbitrary. God could say to you one day that you need to kill your neighbor and rape his wife, this would be right because it is God's command. Likewise God could forbid treating your children well, thus treating your children well becomes wrong.
Now, the typical argument that comes up in opposition to this situation is... "God wouldn't say that." Which leads to the obvious question, why not? Which will invariably result in the answer "because it's wrong." Ahhhhh, yes.
Now onto B.
Assuming B results in right and wrong being totally independent of God. B says that God does not in fact ordain what is right or wrong, rather that God sat one day and saw something happening, murder for instance, and said "no no no, don't do that, it's bad." Or saw something good, a mother sheltering a frightened child for instance and as a result said "ohh yes, do that, it's good." The implication of B is not only that God is independent of right and wrong but, the interesting part, God himself is also subject to morality. He didn't make something wrong by command but rather recognized the wrongness or rightness of it.
(Now to wait on someone to say "Ohh lawd you believe in the Lawd" when they grossly misunderstand the example.)

Anyway Ivor, hopefully these examples were or are helpful to you. And in short form as a sum up to C.R., no, it does not work. Not from a real philosophical view that operates on logic.

[Koshy]

This is all a big appeal to authority. You can't defend the position yourself, so you keep saying 'this is what they said'. If you personally can't address the points we raise, then you obviously personally don't know enough about it. By all means offer others opinions, but they don't make the argument.

Athon

This is just too silly to pass up.

The opinions of professors who have doctorates in philosophy, who I consulted in order to broaden my understanding of the topic as well as to make sure I was on target, have less importance than your opinion.

I highly doubt you're actually formulating all this freshly and are rather relying quite heavily on things you've learned through "others" opinions, without the apostrophe you complained at me earlier about. All references to anything are an appeal to authority. I know a fair deal on the issue, obviously people who have attained very high level degrees are going to know more than me.

To say that a Dr. of philosophy's opinion holds less bearing on the subject than your own. Thats nice.

No need to respond on your part.

[quixotecoyote]

This is just too silly to pass up.

The opinions of professors who have doctorates in philosophy, who I consulted in order to broaden my understanding of the topic as well as to make sure I was on target, have less importance than your opinion.

I highly doubt you're actually formulating all this freshly and are rather relying quite heavily on things you've learned through "others" opinions, without the apostrophe you complained at me earlier about. All references to anything are an appeal to authority. I know a fair deal on the issue, obviously people who have attained very high level degrees are going to know more than me.

To say that a Dr. of philosophy's opinion holds less bearing on the subject than your own. Thats nice.

No need to respond on your part.

Oh yeah well I just asked four doctors of philosophy, and they said you're wrong. See why this is problematical? If not research fallacious appeal to authority.

[Koshy]

Oh yeah well I just asked four doctors of philosophy, and they said you're wrong. See why this is problematical? If not research fallacious appeal to authority.
The arguments I've put forward don't even require a source for analysis, they are straight forward logical errors.

Ohh yeah? Email them. I don't care. Their addresses are on the university site. Put in the title "Philosophy Student.", Dr.Trigg doesn't always reply promptly, Korcz is better about it.

All the references within this have been beside the actual point at hand anyway. Let me list the basic reading sources, the book I suggested above.
The Elements of moral Philosophy: Rachels
How to Think About Weird Things: Schick and Vaughn
A myriad of articles which unfortunately is only compiled at the campus library.
And any decent book on scientific method.
Apologies for not relying solely on internet sources and for actually speaking to experts in a field.

I'm really not trying to be ridiculous here, this is however tiresome going over the same concepts over and over. Ive supplied a list of sources, which isn't going to make anyone happy because they're not internet based.

Refraining from posting, or trying to, until something more relevant comes up.

[athon]

This is simple. Arguments are won and lost on their merit of the information put forward by each side, not by who puts them forward. PhDs don't win arguments.

Koshy, you refuse to answer simple questions or deal honestly with definitions. You confuse terms such as 'culture' and 'society', and in response only reply with references from your PhD buddies. Invite them here by all means, but if you can't defend your own position by addressing the points directly, then why should we bother with you?

Your last two posts contained so much waffle, and neglected to address any single points I made, that it is pointless responding to it. I see no point, as you would only ignore it all and come back again with more appeals to authority and refusals to say why our responses are incorrect, while committing more of the same errors.

When you understand the difference between a culture, a population and a society, come back and talk. When you can say one way or another whether values are objective, come back and talk. Until then it's unlikley anybody here will take you seriously.

Start with my earlier questions. Hell, start just with 'Are values themselves objective or subjective?', and explain your response, and we might have a conversation.

Athon

[athon]

Again keeping it simple and and in an effort to get you to respond plainly, I'll focus on one bit at a time.

You don't seem to understand that a culture is defined as a set of learned behaviours. It occurs within social groups, and is relevant to a context. Therefore, you can get cultures concerned with politics, food preparation, language, music, games, sport...they are all 'cultures', and collectives of these behaviours can be related to a geographical region. It becomes confusing when colloquial descriptions then homogenise culture as being specific to a region, as in 'French' culture. Essentially, there is no single such thing. The geographical region of France has a blending of cultures in numerous contexts, and while some are more common than others, there is no single 'culture' we can even begin to study. Hence socially and anthropologically, the term in that sense is meaningless.

You don't seem to understand this, as you ask in an attempt to explain the term 'society':

If France were to lose part of its territory, would the culture no longer exist?

This question makes no sense whatsoever. What culture? What would define 'French' culture?

Likewise can society be defined by means of language?

I'm assuming by this you are asking 'can a single social group be defined by the language it speaks?'. Yes, it can. In a community of people, those who speak Spanish can be said to share a language culture and can be defined as a social group. To understand aspects of their behaviour regarding speaking that language, you would need to look at it from the perspective of somebody in that culture, as in somebody who speaks Spanish. Not somebody who speaks English.

America is a multilingual country, is it a single society?

Again, in what context? You can refer to 'American society' in general terms, but for it to again have specific meaning it needs a context. Is it a single social group of English speakers? No. However there is a large English speaking social group in America. See the difference in phrasing?

This goes back to what I was saying before - your communication on the topic doesn't reflect somebody who has studied it, but somebody who is parrotting sociology.

Start with addressing these points directly, and not with more 'Dr X says...'.

Athon

[Earthborn]

Ive already given the actual philosophical view on the matterOnly one philosophical view. Philosophy deals with different views.

philosophy deals in objectivesReally?

If something is logically self defeating it is objectively flawed.If someone thinks something is logically self defeating because he fails to understand it, then maybe it is not objectively flawed.

The reason that C.R. is a popular up and coming item is because it seems superficially appealing and correctLet's assume that it is not correct. Where do people's ideas and moral views come from?

There is not a clear way to define clearly a culture or societyThere is no clear way to define the boundaries between different cultures and societies, because they are fluid concepts. There are no clear boundaries. That does not make them meaningless, just like the fact that there are no clear boundaries between the colours of the rainbow does not mean colours cannot be defined.

Morality is a product of society, so the only way to define society, groups, and the like is effectively through their shared morality.Morality is not the only product of society, therefore it cannot be the only way to define a society.

There is therefore no way to independently describe a society.Independent from what?

It does indeed say that we should or are supposed to believe this.It does say that you should believe this if you want to be part of the culture of cultural anthropologists. It is not imposing a universal law.

If another society embraces a concept, lets say Cultural Irrelativism that states the exact opposite of C.R.As you could have read in the cultural anthropology tutorial I linked to earlier, in all cultures people have behaviours they consider "natural" and "obvious" and people tend not to think it is part of their culture, but rather that other cultures that don't have them are somehow "wrong" and "unnatural". Therefore almost all cultures have a concept of "cultural irrelativism". But because such ideas differ from culture to culture, they do depend on culture.

And no, a member of another culture has absolutely no grounds to criticize any other culture, regardless of its practices.That's not true, because cultures are not closed systems. If you know about practices in another culture, then that means there is some cultural exchange going on and there most also be a common culture. There are several ways in which a member of one culture can criticise practices in another culture:


Ethnocentricism: you criticise the other culture from the ideas of of your own, and you may be able to convince people of the other culture that your ideas are somehow better.
Refer to a common culture: you criticise the other culture by refering to common values held by the culture of which both your culture and their culture are subcultures. For example, I may criticise a Friesian for not speaking Dutch, by refering to the fact that he lives in the Netherlands of which the official language is Dutch. Or I may criticise a genocidal dictator by refering to the world community that disapproves of his actions.
Refer to values of the culture to criticise: this is often a bit trickier, because you'll need to be very familiar with the other culture. But in some cases it may be possible to criticise another culture by pointing out that its practices are in conflict with its own values. For example, I may criticise Nazism by pointing out that the Holocaust did not in fact improve the Aryan race.

This leads to an interesting example as well within religious morality and the circular nature somewhat reflects the problem with C.R. but is not a complete parallel, but I'll put it here, even though I'm almost 100% positive someone is going to misunderstand it and complain about it.Quite possible, because I have no idea what you are trying to say with it. Please explain what you think the parallel is between absolutist religious morality and cultural relativism.

The opinions of professors who have doctorates in philosophy, who I consulted in order to broaden my understanding of the topic as well as to make sure I was on target, have less importance than your opinion.If you want to broaden your understanding of the topic, you shouldn't just consult people who support your view. You should try to understand the views of the people who disagree with you.

I highly doubt you're actually formulating all this freshly and are rather relying quite heavily on things you've learned through "others" opinionsThat's how people tend to learn, yes.

To say that a Dr. of philosophy's opinion holds less bearing on the subject than your own.From your paraphrasing of their opinions, its seems to me that they don't have a clue what cultural relativists mean with "culture" or "relativism", so I don't see why their opinion should hold more weight than that of anyone else who doesn't have a clue.

[Earthborn]

People who claim that "cultural relativism" is flawed because it means that there is no culturally independent way to criticise cultures, are a bit like people who claim that Einstein's theory of Relativity is flawed because it doesn't provide an absolutist way of telling what time it is.

[Dancing David]

I just came back from speaking with Dr.Korcz and Dr.Trigg. Dr.Korcz being the department head and Dr.Trigg being well, a doctor of philosophy just thrown in for good measure.

Before I reference them, yes, I will cite my education on the matter, of course you all would discredit me in the same manner regardless of if I did or didn't, and I expect even with the positions of the men I am referring to you will still refute, but thats not my problem after that point.

Dr.Trigg.

The notion of society must be able to be understood independently of the notion of morality. With C.R. the only way to understand a particular society is through its morality likewise the only way to understand morality is through the society to which it belongs, which equates to circular reasoning and an inseparable issue of society. This is a more subtle example.

The actual concept of C.R. is self defeating, as I've said and to which Dr.Trigg and Korcz agree. In stating C.R. there is a contradiction. All societies have their own moral principle, this is stating a universal law pertaining to morals. So the actual ideal of Cultural Relativism is a self contradiction.

Another example is a rehash of the same example I already gave, however I asked him about it just to make sure I was clear. "There is no truth" or "there is no objective truth." is self defeating in the same way that C.R. is, notice that if the statement is true it is contradicting itself. There is one truth, that there is no truth, under that particular statement, which is the same problem ran into by C.R.

Further speaking on the issues of defining a society. If France were to lose part of its territory, would the culture no longer exist? Likewise can society be defined by means of language? America is a multilingual country, is it a single society? Most nations have present in them multiple languages.
In C.R. there is an additional problem present, morality is geographical, and societies are defined by their morality, such that, if a community from a society such as France was absorbed into a society such as Germany, the same morals wouldn't apply because they are no longer a part of the same societal group that they were affiliated with. They are now located within a different geographical area with a different corresponding population and thus a different corresponding set of moral rules. The issue regarding C.R. and the variability of morality depending on location can be expressed through the following example.
Community A thinks abortion is wrong. Community B thinks abortion is right. Therefore a person moving moving from community A to community B would assume the moral standard that abortion is right, if C.R. is correct. This isn't the way that a reasonable person would say that morality works. And indeed nor does philosophy.

Moving on.

Dr.Korcz.

Dr.Korcz didn't contribute as much, but what he did is still quite interesting.

There is another flaw with C.R. regarding person belonging to multiple cultures. What situation does the reasoning in C.R. place this anomaly in.

It could follow that absolutely anything could be right under C.R., such as again the Holocaust or any other number of things.

Also he gave me the example again the inability to label progress, due to there being no measure.



Definitions do matter, as does an understanding of the topic. Im not being pompous, but when two professors have steered me into the same commentary Ive already made.... C.R. is flawed.

Heres my link by the way, since its required to join the party around these parts. Note that it pertains to anthropology, woe is me that the definitions in context to philosophy or anthropology actually do make a difference. The issue being discussed in this topic however is philosophy, and is actually moral relativism, the two terms are such a mess today that they are largely interchangeable however. As I said before, Cultural Relativism's place is in anthropology, now to wait till someone says something inaccurate in response to this.
Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)

Also, the university name is the "University of Louisiana at Lafayette." Dr. Korcz is the department head of the philosophy department and a very friendly and intelligent guy.
Dr.Trigg is a former Englander who taught at Edinburgh before moving here for whatever reason.

Don't take this as an aggressive response to you Dancing Danny. I didn't trim your post, I do find it interesting the double standard that is consistently applied however, an example good enough to be used in support of C.R. is an example thats not good enough to criticize C.R. with.

Funny how you ignore a small sample of culturaly approved dishonesty too.


Also "if you want to say in philosophy C.R. is this." Suppose I do. What have you and the others been saying this whole time? Going back and forth with an undefined issue is..... Anyway, Ill leave for a bit, as its the weekend, and the weekend means Dr.Who, pizza, the couch, the movies, etc. wheeeeeeeee.


Funny how you still presuppose to tell us what the thread is about and what we mean. Is that pyschic powers?

;)

You are new to the forum, just because the thread occurs in the R&P forum does not mean the nomenclature used is restricted to the Philophical use.

You should see what passes for Science in the science forum.

have fun this weekend, i will be painting, which is still a lot calmer than work.

[Dancing David]

The notion of society must be able to be understood independently of the notion of morality. With C.R. the only way to understand a particular society is through its morality likewise the only way to understand morality is through the society to which it belongs, which equates to circular reasoning and an inseparable issue of society. This is a more subtle example.


The notion of society must be able to be understood independently of the notion of morality.

Duh. I agree with that.

With C.R. the only way to understand a particular society is through its morality

Well gee that is a really narrow way to define society, i would say that it is more of an economic system involving the flow of goods, information, personal time, social time and employement usin a large number of media of exchange.

likewise the only way to understand morality is through the society to which it belongs
Not nessecarily there are a number of ways to model morality and they can be within the system as well. i like the game models as a way of describing morailty. Exchange of reeciprocity and harm reduction, need for social order to maximize personal benefit, political expoitation of power, things like that.
It is possible to model a system like morality.

, which equates to circular reasoning and an inseparable issue of society.

Well, that is one way to look at it. There are others. Surely we don't have to act this way just because Dr. Trigg says so.

This is a more subtle example.

[Koshy]

Well gee that is a really narrow way to define society, i would say that it is more of an economic system involving the flow of goods, information, personal time, social time and employement usin a large number of media of exchange.

The issue of defining a society being a big problem in itself, lets look at your example.

Society A could be capitalist, enjoy a national pastime of basket weaving, an exporter of whale oil jelly, anti child labor, unionist, and in possession of a nationwide fiber optic network that allows communication within and without of the country. Society A also agrees that strangling grandmothers when they turn 79 is a good thing to do, that infants shouldn't be killed for whatever reason, and that gay marriage is something they just don't want to happen.

Society B could be capitalist, enjoy a national pastime of basket weaving, an exporter of whale oil jelly, anti child labor, unionist, and in possession of a nationwide fiber optic network that allows communication within and without of the country. Society B also agrees that gay marriage is something they should have, that grandmothers should be enjoyed and respected until they die a natural death, and that infanticide is just dandy because noone likes a deformed babys.

A schematic of the nation's relationship to each other geographically.
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB

Now, are these differences enough to constitute two different societies? If the two societies were absolutely identical, except for A endorsing killing of religious faction L and actively seek to do so, vs B thinking religious faction L is non harmful and should be allowed freedom to practice, would that make them different?

Under C.R. there is only one way to define societies, and that is through their morality, because thats the only thing it really cares about. For instance, the idea does not say "all societies specialized dog breeding programs should be viewed as equally neutral." It only makes the distinction, in this topic as well as in popular use, of morality, thus it is the only method C.R. allows in order to distinguish.

Likewise, lets say for example two different societies are arranged with each other. This time little a and little b. They are absolutely identical to each other. Society little b lives in lowlands plains meanwhile society little a lives in highlands planes, they are directly adjacent to each other and each consider each other as separate societies, though they do intermingle and communicate. Would there even be justification for making a societal differentiation.

Relationship Schematic
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb

Not nessecarily there are a number of ways to model morality and they can be within the system as well. i like the game models as a way of describing morailty. Exchange of reeciprocity and harm reduction, need for social order to maximize personal benefit, political expoitation of power, things like that.
It is possible to model a system like morality.

In C.R. societies all possess their own morality, and the concept of morality without a society is an impossibility, such that there is no way to model morality outside of a society.

In order to form a model you have to use either your own or some objective system of morals. If you were to model using your own morals you would have your current society's morality(or at best your society's understanding of some other society's morality) if you were to use an objective scale, you would be refuting C.R.
A model using another society's morals cant have meaning because there is no basis to make a model. To make that model would be to isolate the morality from the only place it exists, within a particular society, and thus divorce it of its meaning and purpose for existing.

Well, that is one way to look at it. There are others. Surely we don't have to act this way just because Dr. Trigg says so.

This is an example from the Williams book I suggested earlier, Dr.Trigg only concurs with it and helped me to understand it more fully. It is a textbook example, and as I said it is a bit hard to understand the circular reasoning problem because its more subtle than the others.

[Koshy]

Funny how you still presuppose to tell us what the thread is about and what we mean. Is that pyschic powers?


Now. Let me ask yet again, then what is this thread about? Anthropology? Philosophy? Everyone's personal feelings? Spelunking in the caves of Kuala Lampur?


You are new to the forum, just because the thread occurs in the R&P forum does not mean the nomenclature used is restricted to the Philophical use.

You should see what passes for Science in the science forum.

have fun this weekend, i will be painting, which is still a lot calmer than work.

I understand that, however the problem arises particularly in this thread in the adamant refusal to say what were talking about. The sliding back and forth from topic to topic then criticizing someone when they move into one of the other meanings, despite that we've apparently said that that meaning is just as applicable to the topic and has every bit the same right to be in it.

My pancake example from earlier applies, if I'm talking to someone who says a pancake is an automobile, another who says a pancake is a type of plant, another who says a pancake is a comfy sofa in their living room, and another who says a pancake is relative and whatever anyone wants it to be, what sort of headway in any direction is the conversation going to make?

(Have fun painting, I'm looking forward to painting myself, once I learn how of course ;). )

[Koshy]

These are going in backwards order of posting by the way, to avoid confusion.

People who claim that "cultural relativism" is flawed because it means that there is no culturally independent way to criticise cultures, are a bit like people who claim that Einstein's theory of Relativity is flawed because it doesn't provide an absolutist way of telling what time it is.

I'm not aware of that criticism. Sounds interesting though, linky please.

Only one philosophical view. Philosophy deals with different views.
That may or may not be true, however it doesn't effect the logical flaws with the idea.
Philosophy deals with reason and logic. Present another philosophically sound view and we can debate.

If someone thinks something is logically self defeating because he fails to understand it, then maybe it is not objectively flawed.

No, this issue of what someone thinks is precisely what I am trying to avoid, because it doesn't matter. Something either is or is not logically flawed based on reason. There is no failure to understand, only this continual impregnation of individual's ideals into the subject of cultural relativism.
Laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought) of thought, these should help explain some of the problems.

Let's assume that it is not correct. Where do people's ideas and moral views come from?

Assume whats not correct? That C.R. is not correct? Or that people tend to find it superficially appealing?

The question about the origin of morals exceeds the question on the problems with C.R. This would bring us to "I think," which I am trying to avoid.
But, were I using C.R. I would just says morals and values are just a product of societies.

There is no clear way to define the boundaries between different cultures and societies, because they are fluid concepts. There are no clear boundaries. That does not make them meaningless, just like the fact that there are no clear boundaries between the colours of the rainbow does not mean colours cannot be defined.


There is no clear way to define the boundaries between different cultures you say. This brings us to a problem with C.R. then. If there is no clear way, including morality, to define the differences from culture to culture, society to society, then how can we even say that different societies have different morals and values?

The rainbow example does not fit, a rainbow is quite literally an overarching array of colors, to say a rainbow is like morality would be to say that all our morality exists in an infinite array above us and we select little bits of it. It is a pretty example though.


Morality is not the only product of society, therefore it cannot be the only way to define a society.
C.R. makes the distinction to say that all societies have a unique set of morals and values, thus this means that all societies should, even if they share exactly identical economical mindsets etc, have different moral values. This means that the only fool proof way to say that one society is different from another is to identify it by its morality, there is an example in a response to Dancing Danny about this as well.

Independent from what?
Independent from its respective morality.

It does say that you should believe this if you want to be part of the culture of cultural anthropologists. It is not imposing a universal law.

Cultural anthropologists? I'm not quite sure where that comes from.

In any event, it does impose a universal rule. All cultures should be treated as if they are of equal value. The statement isn't in particular to a single culture, for example "all Americans should believe this," it says everyone should.
In saying that there are no universals it is declaring a universal.

As you could have read in the cultural anthropology tutorial I linked to earlier, in all cultures people have behaviours they consider "natural" and "obvious" and people tend not to think it is part of their culture, but rather that other cultures that don't have them are somehow "wrong" and "unnatural". Therefore almost all cultures have a concept of "cultural irrelativism". But because such ideas differ from culture to culture, they do depend on culture.

This is coming up against the definition problem I have went over several times. I have stated myself that C.R. has a grounds to be used in anthropology, so long as it's just a system of comparing.

"Therefore almost all cultures have a concept of "cultural irrelativism"."
This applies to the logical problems with C.R. how? You could easily say that they are actually cultural relativists, they just reject the notions of some societies.

Leaving this be for now.

That's not true, because cultures are not closed systems. If you know about practices in another culture, then that means there is some cultural exchange going on and there most also be a common culture. There are several ways in which a member of one culture can criticise practices in another culture:

1. Ethnocentricism: you criticise the other culture from the ideas of of your own, and you may be able to convince people of the other culture that your ideas are somehow better.
2. Refer to a common culture: you criticise the other culture by refering to common values held by the culture of which both your culture and their culture are subcultures. For example, I may criticise a Friesian for not speaking Dutch, by refering to the fact that he lives in the Netherlands of which the official language is Dutch. Or I may criticise a genocidal dictator by refering to the world community that disapproves of his actions.
3. Refer to values of the culture to criticise: this is often a bit trickier, because you'll need to be very familiar with the other culture. But in some cases it may be possible to criticise another culture by pointing out that its practices are in conflict with its own values. For example, I may criticise Nazism by pointing out that the Holocaust did not in fact improve the Aryan race.


No, there is no grounds for criticism. A culture of genocide has the same intrinsic value as your culture of whatever. Society A that thinks society B is wrong for killing all the brown people in their country has absolutely no basis to complain, because the morals and values being used to justify killing all the brown people are of equal value as the morals being used to say that brown people shouldn't be killed in your country.

" For example, I may criticise Nazism by pointing out that the Holocaust did not in fact improve the Aryan race."
What are you basing that on? Your own society's influence?
Another person may say they are better because they have learned that genocide is wrong(which would again be based on their society's influence), while an infinite number of others may say it is better or worse for an infinite number of reasons.

"That's not true, because cultures are not closed systems. If you know about practices in another culture, then that means there is some cultural exchange going on and there most also be a common culture."
Thus the dividing lines between societies continues to become more and more blurry. Refer above.

"1. Ethnocentricism: you criticise the other culture from the ideas of of your own, and you may be able to convince people of the other culture that your ideas are somehow better."
Here we come up against the objective morality issue again. Somehow better? How would that some be?
There is no objective morality in C.R. saying that something is better implies there is by asserting that it is closer to or further away from an objective point. Likewise using your own culture as a justification is pointless because it is in fact no better or worse than any other culture, according to C.R.

Quite possible, because I have no idea what you are trying to say with it. Please explain what you think the parallel is between absolutist religious morality and cultural relativism.

Read it again, and again, and again. The example was looking at the bit of parallel between religious circular reasoning and C.R. circular reasoning.

If you want to broaden your understanding of the topic, you shouldn't just consult people who support your view. You should try to understand the views of the people who disagree with you.

You mean people who don't know what they're talking about? I can go ask Hart down at the homeless shelter, or wherever hes wandered off to, what he thinks about it, that'd probably be a cosmic adventure.
Hart = Local homeless man, by the way.

I did not seek out people who support my view. I went and discussed with two professors for their opinion, if they had said "no you've totally misunderstood everything you little wanker" I would have came back and apologized for being wrong. Instead they agreed and further explained the problems with it.

From your paraphrasing of their opinions, its seems to me that they don't have a clue what cultural relativists mean with "culture" or "relativism", so I don't see why their opinion should hold more weight than that of anyone else who doesn't have a clue.

You know better then? You've shown the very muddy description of cultures and societies within your post.

I am well aware of what a culture is. I am well aware of what relativism is. Do you want me to post some links to something to prove my knowledge of extremely basic terms?

Cultural Relativism is a trendy thing to say you are and the popular usage of it is extremely messy and incongruous, as is its usage within this topic.

[Koshy]

You don't seem to understand that a culture is defined as a set of learned behaviours. It occurs within social groups, and is relevant to a context. Therefore, you can get cultures concerned with politics, food preparation, language, music, games, sport...they are all 'cultures', and collectives of these behaviours can be related to a geographical region. It becomes confusing when colloquial descriptions then homogenise culture as being specific to a region, as in 'French' culture. Essentially, there is no single such thing. The geographical region of France has a blending of cultures in numerous contexts, and while some are more common than others, there is no single 'culture' we can even begin to study. Hence socially and anthropologically, the term in that sense is meaningless.


There is a culture of debating cultures on the James Randi Educational Foundation forums. And within that culture it is right for Koshy to eat live children on a dinner plate, he does this to maintain a low population of children on the forums and thus secure the stability of the forums.

That was a humerous example, before someone thinks I'm being serious.

So what population to you confers a society? 12? 237? 479,989?
And within that society what confers another society? Are the Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/) a separate societal entity? How about the kitchen workers at Ghallagers? And if so do they then have the right to come up with their own moral codes?
You are using the word culture correctly, however, it's a bit odd within the context of C.R. to say that there are different cultures for all these things, because that would imply that they should then all be allowed to formulate their own unique code of morals.

This entire comment however highlights the difficulties in distinguishing cultures from one another in C.R. unless you rely on their morality, which results in the circular reasoning problem.

This question makes no sense whatsoever. What culture? What would define 'French' culture?


If I were to say to you "The French," what would this immediately bring to mind?
For me its the geographical location, mimes in horizontal stripe shirts, Nova Scotia, acordians, French bread, the Eiffel Tower, etc. All these put together form a distinct cultural imprint or whatever you would like to call it, for me, and most people. The same way that saying Cajun, Chinese, Japanese, or any other widely known cultural group would.

I'm assuming by this you are asking 'can a single social group be defined by the language it speaks?'. Yes, it can. In a community of people, those who speak Spanish can be said to share a language culture and can be defined as a social group. To understand aspects of their behaviour regarding speaking that language, you would need to look at it from the perspective of somebody in that culture, as in somebody who speaks Spanish. Not somebody who speaks English.


So then as an English speaker I have no grounds to criticize the actions of the Spanish speaking society at large. If a Spanish speaker were to say, in Spanish of course, "We like to round up the poor people every so often and kill a few." They have every right to say and do that, because they constitute their own unique little society whose morals are not capable of being scrutinized by another culture. This doesn't seem to work.

Again, in what context? You can refer to 'American society' in general terms, but for it to again have specific meaning it needs a context. Is it a single social group of English speakers? No. However there is a large English speaking social group in America. See the difference in phrasing?

This goes back to what I was saying before - your communication on the topic doesn't reflect somebody who has studied it, but somebody who is parrotting sociology.

Start with addressing these points directly, and not with more 'Dr X says...'.

Athon

My communication on the topic reflects someone who is parroting sociology? Care to provide some examples, seeing as you appear to be an expert on the subject. (Ohhh burn, tossing back and forth pointless little insults doesn't do much.)

In what context is "American" not a culture? This entire series of points only highlights C.R.'s inability to distinguish the society's from one another that it proclaims have a right to their own moral standards.

[Koshy]

And Finally.

Anyone not Athon might as well ignore this one. This is the first post in response to my earlier posts, as I mentioned. So these are in backwards order (all the posts, not this particular one.)

Koshy, you refuse to answer simple questions or deal honestly with definitions. You confuse terms such as 'culture' and 'society', and in response only reply with references from your PhD buddies. Invite them here by all means, but if you can't defend your own position by addressing the points directly, then why should we bother with you?

And your posts after this one had so much actual thought going into them, it seems you became heated and spat something out. But to address it anyway.

What questions am I not dealing honestly with? I am addressing points directly, however alot of the stuff you post doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Take for example the question about whether I believe there are objective moral truths or not. It doesn't matter if there are. How does the presence of objective moral truths affect the problems with C.R.? How does the presence of subjective moral truths affect the problems with C.R.? They don't, they are irrelevant to the discussion.
You yourself may be curious how I feel but that doesn't mean anything in terms of discussing the problems with C.R.


Your last two posts contained so much waffle, and neglected to address any single points I made, that it is pointless responding to it. I see no point, as you would only ignore it all and come back again with more appeals to authority and refusals to say why our responses are incorrect, while committing more of the same errors.


Paraphrase "blah blah blah with no actual examples or reasoning."

I refuse to acknowledge that my leaving my house, going to the library, and going to talk with professors somehow makes may argument stupid and invalid. Any reference is an appeal to authority whether it's a book, television documentary, or trip to a professor's office, the fact that you seem to distinguish for no real reason between them doesn't much effect me.

When you understand the difference between a culture, a population and a society, come back and talk. When you can say one way or another whether values are objective, come back and talk. Until then it's unlikley anybody here will take you seriously.


Values being objective doesn't affect the problem with C.R. nor does their being subjective.

I understand the difference between them, however all you've done is say "you don't understand and I will not show you examples from your writing that shows you do in fact not understand." Blabbering in other words.

Start with my earlier questions. Hell, start just with 'Are values themselves objective or subjective?', and explain your response, and we might have a conversation.

Athon

Again, whether they are or not doesn't even pertain to the discussion about C.R.

How about you show me why it matters if morals are subjective or objective in this discussion and I might get back to you.

[athon]

How about you show me why it matters if morals are subjective or objective in this discussion and I might get back to you.

I think we're done here. Kosky, if you seriously have to ask where subjectivity fits in with cultural relativism (I'll give you a clue - the word 'relativism' has something to do with it) then you've made it blindly obvious that you didn't grasp whatever it was your lecturers were talking about. I smell B.S. if you're claiming you went through a series of lectures on C.R. and didn't once have the term 'subjective' come up. It would be like a cooking student claiming they attended a lecture on how to make bread and never heard a single thing about flour and yeast, and then seriously ask in a discussion 'if you think flour and yeast is in bread, you tell me where'. It becomes seriously obvious the other person isn't even informed enough in the basics to discuss anything.

Athon

[Koshy]

I think we're done here. Kosky, if you seriously have to ask where subjectivity fits in with cultural relativism (I'll give you a clue - the word 'relativism' has something to do with it) then you've made it blindly obvious that you didn't grasp whatever it was your lecturers were talking about. I smell B.S. if you're claiming you went through a series of lectures on C.R. and didn't once have the term 'subjective' come up. It would be like a cooking student claiming they attended a lecture on how to make bread and never heard a single thing about flour and yeast, and then seriously ask in a discussion 'if you think flour and yeast is in bread, you tell me where'. It becomes seriously obvious the other person isn't even informed enough in the basics to discuss anything.

Athon

My god, is there something wrong with your brain? I mean seriously, I spend 2 hours typing out 6 pages just so you can come back and unload some more bs nonsensical crap.

No no no Mr.Smart. What I SAID was. Subjectivity and Objectivity in reality, as in, if there is objective moral truth, vs if there isn't objective moral truth DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL when all you're discussing are the problems with C.R.

It becomes seriously obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about if you come in, bypass what I ask and simply assert that I am wrong.

Tell me ohh genius, why in this discussion of what is logically wrong with C.R. does it matter if subjective or objective truth actually exists. This is so obscenely off target on your part that its outrageous. Go back and read.

And for Christ's sake pay attention this time.

One more time. I did not at any point say "I don't know what subjective means." I asked you why it even matters when the issue being discussed is logical flaws with C.R. This post of your's defies reason.

One final time I am going to pose the question to you, and hope to the heavens that you can understand it. The issues I have been discussing have been in relation to the logical flaws of Cultural Relativism. I have not even engaged the topic of whether or not there is or is not an objective set of morals in the universe. WHY does it matter in this discussion? Why do you want to know if there are objective or subjective morals in truth, when what I am discussing are the logic and reason problems of C.R.

Maybe I need to say it once more, because the numerous times above havn't made it painfully blatantly obvious. I have not asserted whether there is or isn't objective or subjective moral truth in the world, I have only went over again and again the glaring problems with Cultural Relativism. Why ohh why would I even bother beginning to discuss whether or not there is or isn't objective or subjective moral truth when you are physically incapable of understanding what I'm talking about.

Yes that was emotional. Why? Because I went over in a totally rational and reasonable way the problems, time consumingly making sure the examples were phrased correctly, and you swoop in like some fog of horse hair and defy the entire thing to whine about something you can't or wont understand.

Ridiculous.

[athon]

Koshy, your supposed flaws in C.R. depend on having certain defining features of the term 'culture'. You attempted to give an example of what you see as French culture as being about 'mimes and striped shirts', without once ever defining 'culture'. I don't think you understand what culture actually means.

So, please, again, I invite you to supply a comprehensive definition which supports your claims of flawed logic. I again will await you avoiding doing that.

C.R. relies on the very notion that the behaviour of an individual or group is subjective to the cultural elements shared by the group or possessed by the individual, and therefore can only be understood in that context. If one removes culture from a given context and applies the now empty term homogenously across a country's population, you can indeed get some nice circular reasoning out of it. However, it is based on an empty definition and incorrect application of culture.

So far we have a) defined culture for you, b) shown why culture is subjective, c) shown where the circular reasoning arises if one abuses the term culture as being without context and is homogenous within a geographical population, yet doesn't exist if one sees culture as a contextual set of learned behaviours.

If you disagree with any of these, then again, to risk sounding like a broken record, provide us with a comprehensive definition of culture.

Athon

[Koshy]

Koshy, your supposed flaws in C.R. depend on having certain defining features of the term 'culture'. You attempted to give an example of what you see as French culture as being about 'mimes and striped shirts', without once ever defining 'culture'. I don't think you understand what culture actually means.

So, please, again, I invite you to supply a comprehensive definition which supports your claims of flawed logic. I again will await you avoiding doing that.

C.R. relies on the very notion that the behaviour of an individual or group is subjective to the cultural elements shared by the group or possessed by the individual, and therefore can only be understood in that context. If one removes culture from a given context and applies the now empty term homogenously across a country's population, you can indeed get some nice circular reasoning out of it. However, it is based on an empty definition and incorrect application of culture.

So far we have a) defined culture for you, b) shown why culture is subjective, c) shown where the circular reasoning arises if one abuses the term culture as being without context and is homogenous within a geographical population, yet doesn't exist if one sees culture as a contextual set of learned behaviours.

If you disagree with any of these, then again, to risk sounding like a broken record, provide us with a comprehensive definition of culture.

Athon

A comprehensive definition of culture, which you can't provide either because it's a stupid quest to try and define completely culture. There are only the broad definitions, such as the one already posted.

Nice job by the way of totally and completely evading the question I asked in my last post, A+.
Nice job as well perverting my example on culture. To make you happy since you are of the mindless notion that one has to post a dictionary.com reference on the definition of culture(because it's not thoroughly basic enough for you to wrap your head around without one.)
Culture. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Culture)
And once more, how many times do I have to say that I do not care if the values actually are subjective or objective I AM REFUTING C.R. THROUGH ITS LOGICAL FLAWS.
The circular reasoning flaw is not so painfully obvious as the self contradiction and inability to actually determine what a society is, you can't understand it anyway, so this is wasted time typing.
"C.R. relies on the very notion that the behaviour of an individual or group is subjective to the cultural elements shared by the group or possessed by the individual, and therefore can only be understood in that context." Sweet manatee of hyperbole it's staring you in the face through your own poorly worded example and you still fail to grasp it.
Done with you.

ETA:
I have covered this so numerously with you specifically and provided links to the laws of thought as well as referenced various books and the like.
I wish you well in your religion of C.R.

[Dancing David]

The issue of defining a society being a big problem in itself, lets look at your example.

Society A could be capitalist, enjoy a national pastime of basket weaving, an exporter of whale oil jelly, anti child labor, unionist, and in possession of a nationwide fiber optic network that allows communication within and without of the country. Society A also agrees that strangling grandmothers when they turn 79 is a good thing to do, that infants shouldn't be killed for whatever reason, and that gay marriage is something they just don't want to happen.

Society B could be capitalist, enjoy a national pastime of basket weaving, an exporter of whale oil jelly, anti child labor, unionist, and in possession of a nationwide fiber optic network that allows communication within and without of the country. Society B also agrees that gay marriage is something they should have, that grandmothers should be enjoyed and respected until they die a natural death, and that infanticide is just dandy because noone likes a deformed babys.

A schematic of the nation's relationship to each other geographically.
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB
AAAAAAAA[]BBBBBBBB

Now, are these differences enough to constitute two different societies? If the two societies were absolutely identical, except for A endorsing killing of religious faction L and actively seek to do so, vs B thinking religious faction L is non harmful and should be allowed freedom to practice, would that make them different?

That is good , we can communicate.

Well for one thing there are a lot of different points of overlap and distinction. As I said I tend to think of a society as a group of people involved in exchange of various ideas and goods. So in your example you ignored that completely but I see what you are driving at, if you try to view society in abstraction yes that might make sense.

But I again tend to view a society as the exchange network.

Two societies are likely to have many overlapping and unique sets.


Under the model I use the two societies you describe are likely to have a number of markers that are the same and different.

The economic exchange of goods and resources are likely to be different, so that is one difference, the networks of social contact are likely to be different. With some overlap.

But say there are groups of square dancers in both areas, they are likely then to have a linked set to bother areas. And there could be a professional group of the tree hugging and bunny patters, so another linked set.

But that comes from my exposure to my life and experience. I tend to look at things as they are and then look at the associations within it. So while abstracted models are nice, I prefer to look at actual groups.

So in your example there are likely to be associations I would describe as 'society' which will grade from exclusive to a region to shared across the regions.

And if there is a variant of distinction across a particular parameter IE grandmothers I would say the exchange networks might or might not fall out around that parameter. Most likely they would , so yes there are some different societies there.


Under C.R. there is only one way to define societies, and that is through their morality, because thats the only thing it really cares about.

And again, I come from a different POV, if that is the way you wish to define the usage, great. But perhaps you should read some of what I wrote earlier and then comment on my posts. I view it more from the anthropology and informed decisions perspective. Like the discussion of 'sagging' or female genital mutilation.

For instance, the idea does not say "all societies specialized dog breeding programs should be viewed as equally neutral." It only makes the distinction, in this topic as well as in popular use, of morality, thus it is the only method C.R. allows in order to distinguish.

Wow, in abstraction, but real societies are rather different. Skate board punk rockers may also be opera buffs.

Again I think of society as a system of exchange networks.


Likewise, let’s say for example two different societies are arranged with each other. This time little a and little b. They are absolutely identical to each other. Society little b lives in lowlands plains meanwhile society little a lives in highlands planes, they are directly adjacent to each other and each consider each other as separate societies, though they do intermingle and communicate. Would there even be justification for making a societal differentiation.

I think I have already offered my answer.

Obviously there will be unique set, overlapping set and very broad sets of exchange.


Relationship Schematic
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb
aaaaaaaa[]bbbbbbbb



In C.R. societies all possess their own morality, and the concept of morality without a society is an impossibility, such that there is no way to model morality outside of a society.

One can still observe the exchange networks, can one not?


In order to form a model you have to use either your own or some objective system of morals.

See that is probably where we vary, in my POV there are no 'objective' standards outside of the observational framework, all language is a self referencing set of symbols used in contextual fashion that only obtain meaning through reference to an external set of objects of observation. So I apply your logic to all human thoughts and concepts and go on from there. And there is the axiomatic assumption that we are not Brains In Vats

If you were to model using your own morals you would have your current society's morality(or at best your society's understanding of some other society's morality) if you were to use an objective scale, you would be refuting C.R.

You really didn't read the thread before you jumped in did you?


A model using another society's morals cant have meaning because there is no basis to make a model. To make that model would be to isolate the morality from the only place it exists, within a particular society, and thus divorce it of its meaning and purpose for existing.

And so again I tend to view a society as a group of individuals involved in an exchange network.




This is an example from the Williams book I suggested earlier, Dr.Trigg only concurs with it and helped me to understand it more fully. It is a textbook example, and as I said it is a bit hard to understand the circular reasoning problem because it’s more subtle than the others.

I believe the circular reasoning argument is one I am well acquainted with, all human thoughts are equally true, some just have a higher external validity than others.

[fls]

A comprehensive definition of culture, which you can't provide either because it's a stupid quest to try and define completely culture. There are only the broad definitions, such as the one already posted.

Nice job by the way of totally and completely evading the question I asked in my last post, A+.
Nice job as well perverting my example on culture. To make you happy since you are of the mindless notion that one has to post a dictionary.com reference on the definition of culture(because it's not thoroughly basic enough for you to wrap your head around without one.)
Culture. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Culture)

I think that what Athon was asking for is an idea of how you would define culture (that is where the hold-up seems to be), as it is the "how", when it comes to defining concepts such as "culture", "morality", "health" that relate to issues such as circularity and contradiction. You have correctly indentified the problem that when you divide people into groups based on a characteristic, that subsequent statements about that characteristic within the group or comparisons between groups based on that characteristic, are meaningless. This issue is well-recognized. I think that what others are looking for is some reason why you consider this problem necessarily insurmountable when it comes to "culture" when it is not an insurmountable problem for other concepts. Rather than providing examples of attempts to divide people into groups based on the characteristic under consideration (morals), it would have been more helpful for you to provide examples showing that you cannot form groups unless you use that characteristic. You started to get at that a bit with your second example (with the lowercase "a" and "b").

And once more, how many times do I have to say that I do not care if the values actually are subjective or objective I AM REFUTING C.R. THROUGH ITS LOGICAL FLAWS.
The circular reasoning flaw is not so painfully obvious as the self contradiction and inability to actually determine what a society is, you can't understand it anyway, so this is wasted time typing.

I think the self-contradiction you refer to is the idea that "every society has the right to determine what values are important to them"? That stating there does not exist a standard or reference outside of what it is that you are measuring on the one hand, but then providing an objective standard on the other hand, is a contradiction? While it is true that this is a contradiction, it is true for most of what we do. Any framework that we use for understanding the world, starts with a set of basic assumptions. What would be helpful is if you would explain why it is problematic for cultural relativism in a way that is different from other frameworks.

And when it comes to pinning down nebulous concepts, what makes "society" insurmountably difficult?

"C.R. relies on the very notion that the behaviour of an individual or group is subjective to the cultural elements shared by the group or possessed by the individual, and therefore can only be understood in that context." Sweet manatee of hyperbole it's staring you in the face through your own poorly worded example and you still fail to grasp it.
Done with you.

ETA:
I have covered this so numerously with you specifically and provided links to the laws of thought as well as referenced various books and the like.
I wish you well in your religion of C.R.

The issue of measurement is very interesting across all disciplines. In my discipline, it is "health" or "illness" that is comparable to "culture". And the problems are similar, as health is also relative. In order to provide a useful framework to explore the issue, in order to make comparisons, in order to describe, how do you define/select your groups and how do you select a point of reference?

I agree with you that these issues underlie the use of cultural relativism. What I am curious about (and it seems to me that it is what others are curious about here), considering that they also underlie anything else we care to measure (including time, as referenced earlier), what is it that you see as different when it comes to "culture"?

Linda

[Dancing David]

Now. Let me ask yet again, then what is this thread about? Anthropology? Philosophy? Everyone's personal feelings? Spelunking in the caves of Kuala Lampur?

Perhaps it is a personal koan Pondhopper.

;)




I understand that, however the problem arises particularly in this thread in the adamant refusal to say what were talking about. The sliding back and forth from topic to topic then criticizing someone when they move into one of the other meanings, despite that we've apparently said that that meaning is just as applicable to the topic and has every bit the same right to be in it.

Welcome to the forum.

:)


My pancake example from earlier applies, if I'm talking to someone who says a pancake is an automobile, another who says a pancake is a type of plant, another who says a pancake is a comfy sofa in their living room, and another who says a pancake is relative and whatever anyone wants it to be, what sort of headway in any direction is the conversation going to make?

Another personal koan?


(Have fun painting, I'm looking forward to painting myself, once I learn how of course ;). )

Just a couple more hours!

[Ivor the Engineer]

Perhaps, in principle at least, however whilst you give a good definition of what you mean by optimal your definition still seems to me to be resting on an assumption that such a goal is in itself objective rather than it just being one of the many possible goals there are.

I would say that while the reference and goals are arbitrary, they are still objective.

E.g.1 there are many possible places to put one of the voltmeter probes when making a voltage measurement. I.e. it doesn't matter which frame of reference is used, so long as everyone is using the same one, or knows the relationship between the frame of reference they are using, relative to the frame of reference everyone else they wish to interact with uses.

E.g.2 the mean-square-error criterion used in so many optimisation problems is an arbitrary choice, but it has lots of desirable characteristics that make it an extremely common one.

I agree with you that there is no supernatural element to things like values however your argument would seem to support the view that there are not "absolute" values.

Yes, I've given up on the idea of absolute values. However, a lack of an absolute frame of reference does not mean values cannot be objectively measured.

Turn this back on you - you think what SB does is morally wrong, yet I explained a principle that someone using as rational thought and correct information as you do could conclude that what she dos is morally "right".

But not complete information, as far as a sceptic would be concerned, or consistent application across similar situations. E.g., they would probably have a different opinion if their doctor decided to take the same approach to their healthcare.

[Ivor the Engineer]

C.R. relies on the very notion that the behaviour of an individual or group is subjective to the cultural elements shared by the group or possessed by the individual, and therefore can only be understood in that context.

Which makes it rather a pointless field of study, since an anthropologist trying to convey her research to anyone else is, by your definition, unable to, unless there is already a common context between the culture she studied and the culture of the person who she is trying to explain a particular behaviour too.

For progress to be made in any endeavour two things have to be agreed: The reference you will be measuring from and the goal you wish to achieve.

So, what reference do sceptics use? What goal do they have in mind while trying to convince others of their point of view?

[Koshy]

I agree with you that these issues underlie the use of cultural relativism. What I am curious about (and it seems to me that it is what others are curious about here), considering that they also underlie anything else we care to measure (including time, as referenced earlier), what is it that you see as different when it comes to "culture"?

Linda

The problem with defining culture in the way everyone here seems to want it defined is that it is impossible. It sounds like the definition wanted is one that describes every individual group absolutely completely and correctly, this is why I said that there are only the broad definitions already provided and the one I linked to.

To use much less concrete terms, and hence where the problem here comes in as well, depending on how I view culture is going, potentially very radically, alter where I would draw the dividing line between societies, and the same seems true for every person.
We have the example that Dancing David provided, that cultures go down to things as small as baseball culture and restaurant worker culture. But the problem as I said with this, if you are using C.R., is that if these do in fact constitute individual cultures they should then be able to form their own set of morals without scrutiny.
I do however understand what DD was saying in that in all cultures there are a saturation of other cultures, which from my view only blurs the line more and more, thus making the societal distinctions that C.R. relies upon exceedingly difficult/impossible to do in any objective way that everyone could agree on.

As for a definition of what I think culture is. Taking in mind this is opinion.

Culture would be a set of things that Identify a culture typically. My French example: I am well aware that French culture goes far beyond the immediate thoughts that I have when I hear the word, but that immediate recognition carries with it a cultural "imprint"(as I said above, but you can use whatever word) that I associate French culture with, which would be the mimes, French bread, etc. This goes for Chinese culture, Japanese culture, etc as well.

It is an insurmountable problem, because it seems noone can agree on it, even the multiple opponents to what I have said can not produce a cohesive definition on which to base distinctions.
As far as I know, outside of this discussion it is extremely hard to come by a concrete appraisal of culture as well because everyone likes to just draw their own lines of distinction. In addition to this, the definitions of culture from various individuals can be extremely suspect, which they of course regard as the heavenly truth on the matter, but given the way C.R. works, they have to be taken seriously.

Also the actual definitions for C.R. used by individuals are extremely blurry, such that when their definition is compounded with the already hard to decipher ones the resulting clash of indistinction causes acute glaucoma.(joke by the way.)
As my understanding goes the definition within this topic is that of " There are no universal moral codes that we all need to abide by. Everyone's individual society has its own set of moral codes. All societies sets of moral codes are of equal value to one another. We should all tolerate all other cultures sets of moral codes." Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and please do not link to the wiki article or the like, I have already read them.

My thoughts as to why this happens relates to C.R. being a pop philosophy that people like to embrace without any real thought devoted to it. Tolerating everyone sounds nice at first glance.

((Mostly not to you Linda) If you want to respond to this please use something like "I don't understand where you're going with this." or "That makes no sense could you please rephrase." etc. Instead of the usual "You don't have any education lolz dumb" responses.
I am happy to go research more so long as we can maintain a civil attitude; and yes, I am aware that I have not at all times remained perfectly civil, because I think repaying aggressiveness with aggressiveness is just dandy, but it does make me appear less professional so I will refrain from this point.)

[Earthborn]

It is an insurmountable problem, because it seems noone can agree on it, even the multiple opponents to what I have said can not produce a cohesive definition on which to base distinctions.I have already linked to a perfectly good definition. One which other people in this thread have agreed to, one that is used specifically by scientists who study culture, and the only one relevant to the discussion: culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns (http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm). It is a definition on which one can base distinctions between cultures: people with a common learnt behaviour pattern have a common culture, people who have different learnt behaviour patterns have different cultures. It is however not possible to draw hard dividing lines between cultures, but you are the only one who has argued that this is necessary.

In addition to this, the definitions of culture from various individuals can be extremely suspect, which they of course regard as the heavenly truth on the matterPeople have asked you for your definition, to better understand your view. You haven't told us what your definition is.

As my understanding goes the definition within this topic is that of " There are no universal moral codes that we all need to abide by. Everyone's individual society has its own set of moral codes. All societies sets of moral codes are of equal value to one another. We should all tolerate all other cultures sets of moral codes."We are talking about Cultural Relativism, not Moral Relativism, which is not quite the same thing. The way I see it, Moral Relativism is a subset of Cultural Relativism, because morality is a part of culture (it is a learnt behaviour).

Your first two sentences are a nice summary of Moral Relativism. The third and fourth sentence contradict the first and second sentence, so they are not part of Moral Relativism. Sentence 3 and 4 imply an absolute moral code, something Moral Relativists do not believe in. One does not need to believe in the equal value of all moral codes at all to be a Moral Relativist, in fact I don't think anyone does.

I am both a cultural and moral relativist. I believe that Al Qaeda has its own culture with its own moral code, which is quite distinct from the culture and moral code of the Society of Friends (http://www.quaker.org/), but I do not believe they are both of equal value.

It should probably be noted that my judgement of value of each is not an appeal to a universal or absolute morality. I do not claim to know the mind of God.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and please do not link to the wiki article or the like, I have already read them.I think you should read them more carefully.

I do however understand what DD was saying in that in all cultures there are a saturation of other cultures, which from my view only blurs the line more and more, thus making the societal distinctions that C.R. relies upon exceedingly difficult/impossible to do in any objective way that everyone could agree on.The "line" is not only blurry, it does not exist. There are no dividing lines between cultures. Cultural Relativism does not depend on it, it depends on the definition of culture used by cultural anthropologists and basically means nothing but: "To understand people, you'll have to consider the things they have learnt, because their behaviour depends on (is relative to) what they have learnt".

[salista]

after reading almost all of thread i became extremely confused by Ivor. You dont seem to have a grasp of the issues you are presenting at all and you actually make some outrageous statements that are perhaps for shock value, such as what is wrong with subjugating women and there is a lack of criticism of nations governed by Islamic law.

Ethnocentricism is for a monoculture yet culture is becoming increasingly plurastic and i think objective judgement as an anthropological tool for understanding culture is very weak.

Thank heavens someone mentioned subjectivity, whilst many make up a whole, as individuals we have our own thoughts and beliefs.

Again pointing at witchcraft to expose its flaws teaches us nothing about the subjectivity of the persons involved in ritual, just as natural history museums only valorise the other

so far i only hear cold facts and a discussion on culture needs to be far more diverse than that. Cultural relativism is trendy?.....where? to whom? it depends which group you are speaking from?

you have no clear focus at all

[athon]

Which makes it rather a pointless field of study, since an anthropologist trying to convey her research to anyone else is, by your definition, unable to, unless there is already a common context between the culture she studied and the culture of the person who she is trying to explain a particular behaviour too.

I'm really not seeing where this is difficult. Nobody is saying that there aren't common cultural traits. Cultural Relativism says that behaviour can only be understood in the context of the culture in which it is observed.

If a person kills their child, it is futile to ask how a person could do such an awful thing. Making that judgement is observing the behaviour in the context of a different cultural context. To understand how a person is capable of doing something we might find abhorent, we need to evaluate it in the context of their own values and experiences.

For progress to be made in any endeavour two things have to be agreed: The reference you will be measuring from and the goal you wish to achieve.

If I want to understand a behaviour and anticipate its impact in another culture, I need to establish the cultural context. That's all it means. I agree that it is difficult to do if I can't relate in some form to the concepts and values, however nobody said C.R. was easy to apply, especially if somebody approaches it without much experience in cultural diversity themselves.

I'll give you a perfect example from my own personal experience. Going into an Aboriginal community to teach kids, one has to understand their behaviour. One behaviour is that they never look you in the eye. You talk to them about something and they look everywhere else. This behaviour is disrespectful in our own cultural context - I'm forever telling my kids to look me in the eye when they're talking to me.

For Indigenous children, this is extremely disrespectful. Now, I can relate to the fact that kids can be disrespectful. I can relate to the fact that some behaviours in my own culture can be disrespectful. Hence I have my own framework of evaluating behaviour as respecting elders or not respecting them. Categories of respectful and non-respectful behaviours exist in each of our cultures. However, in order to evaluate those behaviours, I cannot use my own cultural context.

Does that help?

So, what reference do sceptics use? What goal do they have in mind while trying to convince others of their point of view?

Believe me, I've often asked this question.

Again to use Indigenous Australia as an example (it's the one I'm most familiar with), to challenge the beliefs of the community is a virtual death sentence. Community is everything, and to become an outsider to it is almost as bad as death (often why Aborigines in custody suicide). So, while I personally see great value in establishing truth regardless of social belief, this has low value in an Aboriginal community.

I've struggled long with whether critical thinking can, indeed should, be taught in an Indigenous community, when doing such conflicts with Aboriginal communal values. I still have no answer, sorry, and any thoughts on the matter would be welcomed.

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

after reading almost all of thread i became extremely confused by Ivor. You dont seem to have a grasp of the issues you are presenting at all and you actually make some outrageous statements that are perhaps for shock value, such as what is wrong with subjugating women and there is a lack of criticism of nations governed by Islamic law.

So what is wrong with subjugating women? Tell me how in a world with only relative, subjective morality, any culture can say another is wrong for believing this is the correct way to treat women? Please include the reference and goals you use to determine that it is “wrong”. Do you think an objective argument could be made for giving women equal rights in Islamic societies?

Ethnocentricism is for a monoculture yet culture is becoming increasingly plurastic and i think objective judgement as an anthropological tool for understanding culture is very weak.

Are you sure you’ve read the thread? I’ve already said that the use of cultural relativism as a tool is sensible for anthropologists. However, I do not think it is a sensible approach for determining what behaviour should be tolerated or thought of as “right”. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the ethnocentric attitude of the Victorian era.

Thank heavens someone mentioned subjectivity, whilst many make up a whole, as individuals we have our own thoughts and beliefs.

That’s just so warm and fuzzy and feels good. Until you realize it means you have to tolerate the behaviour of homeopaths, faith healers, quacks, religious fundamentalists, etc.

Again pointing at witchcraft to expose its flaws teaches us nothing about the subjectivity of the persons involved in ritual, just as natural history museums only valorise the other

so far i only hear cold facts and a discussion on culture needs to be far more diverse than that. Cultural relativism is trendy?.....where? to whom? it depends which group you are speaking from?

you have no clear focus at all

How about Dawkins?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-03-24science_and_sensibility.shtml

Cultural relativism is the most pernicious of these myths of twentieth century retreat from Victorian certainty. A modish fad sees science as only one of many cultural myths, no more true nor valid than the myths of any other culture.

[Darat]

So what is wrong with subjugating women? Tell me how in a world with only relative, subjective morality, any culture can say another is wrong for believing this is the correct way to treat women? ...snip...



Because we make judgments based on our own values.

[athon]

So what is wrong with subjugating women?

In my values, it is wrong.

There are always going to be conflicts of values within and between cultures. If I value life, my behaviour will be to defend it. If another values God, they will defend it.

I have an additional value that defends all person's freedoms to have and persue their own values and morals so long as they don't impact on another's right to have the same. I will defend that. It is indeed subjective and I have no objective set of standards against which I can say it is objectively right. But I believe in it enough that I will behave in a manner which will defend it, as if it were any other value I believe in.

However, I do not think it is a sensible approach for determining what behaviour should be tolerated or thought of as “right”. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the ethnocentric attitude of the Victorian era.

There is no 'right'. Oddly, the only ones I have ever read to say that C.R. says that every moral or value is 'right' are those that speak against it. Those in favour of using it understand that it is meaningless to speak of morals, values or cultural behaviours being objectively right or wrong outside of the context of their culture.

That’s just so warm and fuzzy and feels good. Until you realize it means you have to tolerate the behaviour of homeopaths, faith healers, quacks, religious fundamentalists, etc.

You don't 'have to' do anything. C.R. advocates have their own cultures which also have their own values which influence their behaviours. If you value good information and science being done properly, then you will act in accordance and speak against it. You might understand that a homeopath doesn't value those same effective science practices as you do, however where your social groups overlap your behaviour will demonstrate the conflict in values. While your different values exist, conflict will continue. Objectively neither of you are 'right' because there is no objective system of qualifiers against which you can compare your values. That doesn't mean you shouldn't defend your values in your social group where they are under conflict.

How about Dawkins?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-03-24science_and_sensibility.shtml

Without knowing more than that quote, I would disagree even with the mighty Dawkins. Again he declares there to be an equal 'rightness' to all cultures, which simply doesn't exist.

Athon

[Lonewulf]

Because we make judgments based on our own values.
But surely it can go deeper than that. Surely one could make a good argument against subjugation of woman that goes beyond, "oh, my values are just different"? Surely there's an argument that can say that not subjugating woman is something that is actually worth doing?

I'd say that not subjugating women would be more beneficial for society. Women would have more and more ability to contribute, and thus become better for other humans as a whole. Is this a "relativist", "absolutist", or "somethingelsist" argument I'm making here?

As my understanding goes the definition within this topic is that of " There are no universal moral codes that we all need to abide by. Everyone's individual society has its own set of moral codes. All societies sets of moral codes are of equal value to one another. We should all tolerate all other cultures sets of moral codes."

Evidence that the latter isn't a strawman?

[athon]

I'd say that not subjugating women would be more beneficial for society.

If you value pragmatism over your community's view of Allah's Law. If you value society progressing in wealth and prosperity over the favour of your god. If how you respond with regards to your faith is amongst the lowest of values...then maybe not subjagating women would be moralistic. Those practical outcomes only make sense in a culture such as ours where practical outcomes have a higher value than the perception of god's law.

We can always argue that such pragmatism has great benefits to society - but that's only in the absence of values (even purely 'magical' ones) which have the appearance of being more important.

Athon

[Dancing David]

Which makes it rather a pointless field of study, since an anthropologist trying to convey her research to anyone else is, by your definition, unable to, unless there is already a common context between the culture she studied and the culture of the person who she is trying to explain a particular behaviour too.

For progress to be made in any endeavour two things have to be agreed: The reference you will be measuring from and the goal you wish to achieve.

So, what reference do sceptics use? What goal do they have in mind while trying to convince others of their point of view?


Well it depends on the anthropologist, there are those who just observe and report what they see about the cultures and associative networks, there are those who look at the exchanges that take place within the society and the roles that they play in those exchanges.

One anthropologist may be very symbolic and just study the stories that people tell, another may look for the source site for the goods exchanged economicaly. The exchange of goods says a lot about a culture and society. As do other exchanges.

[Lonewulf]

If you value pragmatism over your community's view of Allah's Law. If you value society progressing in wealth and prosperity over the favour of your god. If how you respond with regards to your faith is amongst the lowest of values...then maybe not subjagating women would be moralistic. Those practical outcomes only make sense in a culture such as ours where practical outcomes have a higher value than the perception of god's law.

We can always argue that such pragmatism has great benefits to society - but that's only in the absence of values (even purely 'magical' ones) which have the appearance of being more important.

Athon

So if I were a cultural relativist, and I loathe what's done in other countries and how people are treated... what could I do? I would be free (philosophically) to oppose them, right?

My point is, what keeps me from trying to change what I perceive as detrimental or harmful, to individuals or to society? I'm hoping the answer is "nothing", but I'm trying to understand the philosophy here.

[fls]

The problem with defining culture in the way everyone here seems to want it defined is that it is impossible. It sounds like the definition wanted is one that describes every individual group absolutely completely and correctly, this is why I said that there are only the broad definitions already provided and the one I linked to.

This seems to be a common problem in a general discussion about a topic, rather than a discussion directed at a specific context - we (as in anyone participating) start to ask for a definition that covers all situations when in actual use it's referring to the situation under consideration. What may be important here is that any particular definition you like to use doesn't necessarily exclude those that others like to use. It may be correct to say, "by this definition, Cultural Relativism is not logical". But that suggests that others are using Culture and Cultural Relativism in a way that is different; a way that does make them reasonable and internally consistent.

To use much less concrete terms, and hence where the problem here comes in as well, depending on how I view culture is going, potentially very radically, alter where I would draw the dividing line between societies, and the same seems true for every person.
We have the example that Dancing David provided, that cultures go down to things as small as baseball culture and restaurant worker culture. But the problem as I said with this, if you are using C.R., is that if these do in fact constitute individual cultures they should then be able to form their own set of morals without scrutiny.

I think that if you got rid of the "morals from other cultures get a free pass" notion, you wouldn't have a problem defining culture. It is intuitively difficult to find a way to group people if you consider that as soon as you place individuals within the confines of a group that they are no longer bound to any reasonable moral code. Nobody is imposing that constraint on you.

I do however understand what DD was saying in that in all cultures there are a saturation of other cultures, which from my view only blurs the line more and more, thus making the societal distinctions that C.R. relies upon exceedingly difficult/impossible to do in any objective way that everyone could agree on.

As for a definition of what I think culture is. Taking in mind this is opinion.

Culture would be a set of things that Identify a culture typically. My French example: I am well aware that French culture goes far beyond the immediate thoughts that I have when I hear the word, but that immediate recognition carries with it a cultural "imprint"(as I said above, but you can use whatever word) that I associate French culture with, which would be the mimes, French bread, etc. This goes for Chinese culture, Japanese culture, etc as well.

It is an insurmountable problem, because it seems noone can agree on it, even the multiple opponents to what I have said can not produce a cohesive definition on which to base distinctions.

Honestly, it doesn't look that messy to me. The general idea seems to be consistently understood, and there doesn't seem to be disagreement on the specific examples or ways that people (including yourself) have given.

As far as I know, outside of this discussion it is extremely hard to come by a concrete appraisal of culture as well because everyone likes to just draw their own lines of distinction. In addition to this, the definitions of culture from various individuals can be extremely suspect, which they of course regard as the heavenly truth on the matter, but given the way C.R. works, they have to be taken seriously.

It really looks like the difficulty is not in defining groups, but in what is to be done with the group once you have formed it.

Also the actual definitions for C.R. used by individuals are extremely blurry, such that when their definition is compounded with the already hard to decipher ones the resulting clash of indistinction causes acute glaucoma.(joke by the way.)

I think all of you have been reasonably consistent and distinct when defining CR. It's just that you are using a definition that is different.

As my understanding goes the definition within this topic is that of " There are no universal moral codes that we all need to abide by. Everyone's individual society has its own set of moral codes. All societies sets of moral codes are of equal value to one another. We should all tolerate all other cultures sets of moral codes." Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and please do not link to the wiki article or the like, I have already read them.

I don't agree with your third and fourth sentences, but I don't really have anything to add to the explanations that have already been given by others here, or the quotes from the wiki article.

Linda

[athon]

So if I were a cultural relativist, and I loathe what's done in other countries and how people are treated... what could I do? I would be free (philosophically) to oppose them, right?

The problem arises when people try to force C.R. into being a philosophy rather than a tool used to understand behaviour. It gets abused into being about all things being equally right, when in reality, there is no such description. Even I am subject to behaving with relevance to my own values - the equivalent would be somebody becoming nihilistic to an absurd degree and say 'since values are subjective, I'll have no values'. That's not only impossible, but ridiculous. If we are to exist in a community we need to understand all values, including our own, and negotiate behaviour so everybody can be free to behave in accordance with their values without detracting from others rights to do so.

And yes, that is me expressing my own values. I agree there arises a dichotomy if an individual comes along whose value is to deprive others of theirs...can I then deprive them of that one value?

Ok, so my own system has flaws. But it's not about perfecting a system, but having a tool to understand the behaviours we have.

My point is, what keeps me from trying to change what I perceive as detrimental or harmful, to individuals or to society? I'm hoping the answer is "nothing", but I'm trying to understand the philosophy here.

Nothing at all. Use C.R. to understand why others are opposing you. But it doesn't say you can't behave in accordance to your own values.

Athon

[Dancing David]

The problem with defining culture in the way everyone here seems to want it defined is that it is impossible. It sounds like the definition wanted is one that describes every individual group absolutely completely and correctly, this is why I said that there are only the broad definitions already provided and the one I linked to.

To use much less concrete terms, and hence where the problem here comes in as well, depending on how I view culture is going, potentially very radically, alter where I would draw the dividing line between societies, and the same seems true for every person.
We have the example that Dancing David provided, that cultures go down to things as small as baseball culture and restaurant worker culture. But the problem as I said with this, if you are using C.R., is that if these do in fact constitute individual cultures they should then be able to form their own set of morals without scrutiny.

Politely i will point out that you are asserting what you feel to be the defining point of culture. I would say that the use of culture is too broad a term, it is a catch all that often reflects the social and intelelctual materials produced in a particular association of people, ones that usually are bound loosely by geography and history. Yet sub-groups do have their own 'culture', take potheads, there are certain rules of conduct and mores within that group that are cohesive in area and scope. So they do set their own idiomatic mores depending on diffusion of interaction acroos the boundaries of associative networks. They will also have clique behaviors of language dress and location that mark members of the group.


I do however understand what DD was saying in that in all cultures there are a saturation of other cultures, which from my view only blurs the line more and more, thus making the societal distinctions that C.R. relies upon exceedingly difficult/impossible to do in any objective way that everyone could agree on.

Well again that is because 'culture' applies to all domains of human existance and has at least three general meanings of useage. The associative grouping of very large cliques that can be marked by language, dress , social expression and mores, the products of those groups in various media of interaction and then more historical usage of markers of history in geography and economic exchange on large scales by cliques.

Culture is very idomatic, including the JREF, it has it's own styles and conventions.
there is the driveby posting for example where pithy comments are seen as argumentation even if they have no valid basis in critical thought, although this argument by trashing has decreased on the board.
And on language usage, if you assert that other people don't know what they are talking about then why should they be polite to you?

[Lonewulf]

Nothing at all. Use C.R. to understand why others are opposing you. But it doesn't say you can't behave in accordance to your own values.
Now, Cultural Relativity and Moral Relativity have been said (in this thread) to be different, but also that one is the subset of another.

If I was a Moral Relativist, would it be the same as if I was a Cultural Relativist, only instead of Culture, dealing with Morality? Or has the definition innately changed?

[chocolatepossum]

Now, Cultural Relativity and Moral Relativity have been said (in this thread) to be different, but also that one is the subset of another.

If I was a Moral Relativist, would it be the same as if I was a Cultural Relativist, only instead of Culture, dealing with Morality? Or has the definition innately changed?

I don't think moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) is a subset of cultural relativism. Moral relativism itself is a very broad description of a large number of different moral stances. From what I've been reading, anyone who doesn't believe in absolute or objective morality is a moral relativist. You could think that morality is relative to the individual or to the culture. You might think that this relativity has implications for whether you are entitled to judge other people or cultures, or you might think it is irrelevant to how you make your moral judgements.

[salista]

Ethnocentricism is for a monoculture yet culture is becoming increasingly pluralistic and i think objective judgement as an anthropological tool for understanding culture is very weak.

typo in previous post



That’s just so warm and fuzzy and feels good. Until you realize it means you have to tolerate the behaviour of homeopaths, faith healers, quacks, religious fundamentalists, etc.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because we make judgments based on our own values.

And cannot science indicate if a value has a likely rational basis?

If we accept that a rational world (i.e. one governed by universal natural laws) exists, cannot values that have shown to be irrational and/or inconsistent with our observations of it be considered inferior to those that still appear rational and consistent?

For a more concrete example:

Is there objective evidence that not subjugating women is better than subjugating them?

If not, what argument are you planning on using to convince a culture that does believe the subjugation of women is 'right', that it is in fact 'wrong'?

[chocolatepossum]

And cannot science indicate if a value has a likely rational basis?


No. Morality can be informed by science (injecting someone with blood against their will becomes more wrong when you know that it could transmit a fatal infectious disease) but our ultimate moral values are not decided or discovered by science.

Is there objective evidence that not subjugating women is better than subjugating them?

What does "better" mean in this context? For someone who highly values the individual freedom of women it would obviously be better not to subjugate them, whereas for someone who valued their obedience subjugation would be preferable.

[Ivor the Engineer]

No. Morality can be informed by science (injecting someone with blood against their will becomes more wrong when you know that it could transmit a fatal infectious disease) but our ultimate moral values are not decided or discovered by science.

I didn't think I said they were, did I?

What does "better" mean in this context? For someone who highly values the individual freedom of women it would obviously be better not to subjugate them, whereas for someone who valued their obedience subjugation would be preferable.

So those that believe subjugation of women is preferable are making a claim that not subjugating them would overall be objectively damaging, rather than beneficial or neutral.

Conversely, those that believe the individual freedom of women is preferable are making the claim that subjugating them would overall be objectively damaging, rather than beneficial or neutral.

So the argument to me comes down to which variables should be used to measure the validity of the two opposing claims and how much consistent evidence can be found to support either point of view.

[Darat]

And cannot science indicate if a value has a likely rational basis?


Not really because "moral principles" are axioms.


If we accept that a rational world (i.e. one governed by universal natural laws) exists, cannot values that have shown to be irrational and/or inconsistent with our observations of it be considered inferior to those that still appear rational and consistent?


...snip...

Yes we can do that but can't you see that you are still basing your measure on your values, which as I say above are (and I think have to be) asserted?

[Darat]

...snip...

So the argument to me comes down to which variables should be used to measure the validity of the two opposing claims and how much consistent evidence can be found to support either point of view.

And how do you decide which variables should be used?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Yes we can do that but can't you see that you are still basing your measure on your values, which as I say above are (and I think have to be) asserted?

So what you are saying is that if the value of rationality is not shared, then both the sceptic and the woo can claim to be just as "right" as each other?

[Ivor the Engineer]

And how do you decide which variables should be used?

The two opposing cultures mutually agree on what variables are important.

[Dancing David]

So if I were a cultural relativist, and I loathe what's done in other countries and how people are treated... what could I do? I would be free (philosophically) to oppose them, right?

This is the tack into theadweind that I would take.

I value equal human rights, the playingflield of society should have equal merit for all members. This is the axiom of 'human rights'. I can say that it is part of my culture which it is, yet I can also argue that it is also for the value of fighting arbitrary political abuse of power.

So the correct tack is to argue about human rights and their possible benfits and detriments. As opposed to using words like 'humane','civilized' and the 'rule of law'.

You are still stuck in the arbitrary symbols of language but you can try to end run your own cultural bias.

[Dancing David]

The problem arises when people try to force C.R. into being a philosophy rather than a tool used to understand behaviour.


Thank you Athon, the tool versus the application!

[Dancing David]

And cannot science indicate if a value has a likely rational basis?

If we accept that a rational world (i.e. one governed by universal natural laws) exists, cannot values that have shown to be irrational and/or inconsistent with our observations of it be considered inferior to those that still appear rational and consistent?

For a more concrete example:

Is there objective evidence that not subjugating women is better than subjugating them?

If not, what argument are you planning on using to convince a culture that does believe the subjugation of women is 'right', that it is in fact 'wrong'?


Only if you choose arbitrary values to make your judgement.

In marxist anthropology the study is all of the economic exchange and the personal and political power that comes from it.

Using the economic framework is usually the most beneficial.

Like when people who hate postmodernism and they start trashing feminism saying things like "In eskimo society men propvide almost all the food, therefore they are most imporatant.", then you can zap that puppy by pointing out the in economics it is the female who provides the clothing technology that allows the male to use his technology to hunt.

So looking at the exchanges of goods is a great place to start.

[Dancing David]

So what you are saying is that if the value of rationality is not shared, then both the sceptic and the woo can claim to be just as "right" as each other?

yes, but the imporatant area is the intersection where you discuss the actual values being discussed. In homeopathy a claim is made of medical benefit, that can be measured.

[Dancing David]

The two opposing cultures mutually agree on what variables are important.


And thgat can only come about by discussing the values and the basis of the values.

Take the FGM and MGM(castration), the only basis of intersect is when you can decide if you agree that the infliction of pain and suffering has x benefit and y consequences. I think that most men would agree they would not want someone cutting their scrotum off (the analog of FGM), the discussion can revolve around why there is a value in denying women a clitoris and making a very high risk of death. When the other side starts talking about it as a way of controlling teh sexual behavior of men and women, then a discussion is taking place and more progress is likely to be made.

So while the harem possesor may want his males castrated you might be able to get to the point where they admit that they would not want their own sexuality controlled that way, and that leads then to discussion of equality and those values.

[Darat]

So what you are saying is that if the value of rationality is not shared, then both the sceptic and the woo can claim to be just as "right" as each other?

Well as has been pointed out the word "right" as in correct doesn't really make much sense in such a comparison but yes in a way according to their different values they are both "right".

The two opposing cultures mutually agree on what variables are important.

Dancing David provides a good example of that i.e. someone who believes in homeopathy and someone who doesn't. If they both agree on what the measure is (for example, a cure) then you can compare the two beliefs against that measure.

But this really has nothing to do with cultural relativism....

[Ivor the Engineer]

And thgat can only come about by discussing the values and the basis of the values.

Take the FGM and MGM(castration), the only basis of intersect is when you can decide if you agree that the infliction of pain and suffering has x benefit and y consequences. I think that most men would agree they would not want someone cutting their scrotum off (the analog of FGM), the discussion can revolve around why there is a value in denying women a clitoris and making a very high risk of death. When the other side starts talking about it as a way of controlling teh sexual behavior of men and women, then a discussion is taking place and more progress is likely to be made.

So while the harem possesor may want his males castrated you might be able to get to the point where they admit that they would not want their own sexuality controlled that way, and that leads then to discussion of equality and those values.

That assumes they value rationality wrt the issue.

Rather than trying to stop FGC, shouldn't you be suggesting a safer way to perform it instead?

[Darat]

...snip...

Rather than trying to stop FGC, shouldn't you be suggesting a safer way to perform it instead?

That would depend on his/her values....

[Dancing David]

That assumes they value rationality wrt the issue.

Rather than trying to stop FGC, shouldn't you be suggesting a safer way to perform it instead?


If you wish to use a harm reduction model, when men chop off the end of their penis and calle that circumscision then I would think it is fair.

No I think FMG is culturally sanctioned body modification and that when the men agree to cut the end of their penis off then it will be fair. But denying women sexual pleasure is the real reason I oppose it. They could do it surgically and with anesthesia and I would still oppse it, the women involved are not capable of informed consent. i oppose it on the basis of equality and tolerant hedonism.

Just like breast ironing. Controlling the men and punishing them for assaulting young women would make more sense than burning the breasts.

Just my overated opinion.

[Ivor the Engineer]

If you wish to use a harm reduction model, when men chop off the end of their penis and calle that circumscision then I would think it is fair.

That would be a harm increase model:confused:

No I think FMG is culturally sanctioned body modification and that when the men agree to cut the end of their penis off then it will be fair. But denying women sexual pleasure is the real reason I oppose it. They could do it surgically and with anesthesia and I would still oppse it, the women involved are not capable of informed consent. i oppose it on the basis of equality and tolerant hedonism.

Just like breast ironing. Controlling the men and punishing them for assaulting young women would make more sense than burning the breasts.

Just my overated opinion.

If FGC really was a "very dangerous practice" then the survival of the cultures that practice it would be under threat. How many generations of women have had it done to them? Also, how do we know that women who have undergone FGC cannot experience sexual pleasure, or that they miss it if they can't?

It sounds to me like you are heaping a whole load of your culture's values onto the men and women in the cultures that practice FGC.

[Darat]

...snip...

If FGC really was a "very dangerous practice" then the survival of the cultures that practice it would be under threat. How many generations of women have had it done to them? Also, how do we know that women who have undergone FGC cannot experience sexual pleasure, or that they miss it if they can't?



Ahem - may I respectfully remind the thread starter that his OP was not about FGM.... ;)


It sounds to me like you are heaping a whole load of your culture's values onto the men and women in the cultures that practice FGC.

And why shouldn't he?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ahem - may I respectfully remind the thread starter that his OP was not about FGM.... ;)

But...but... oh, alright then:(:D

And why shouldn't he?

Because I thought the whole point of cultural relativism was to see things as a member of the culture being studied. If you come away from culture and believe how they live their lives is wrong somehow, then clearly you never did understand that aspect of their lives in the first place.

Clearly how the studied cultures behave "works" or they would not be around to study in the first place! And as the saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Darat]

...snip...

Because I thought the whole point of cultural relativism was to see things as a member of the culture being studied.

...snip...

Not quite - it's to help you study a culture and to gain an understanding of how it works in terms of the values and references that culture actually uses and not your own.

...snip...

If you come away from culture and believe how they live their lives is wrong somehow, then clearly you never did understand that aspect of their lives in the first place.

...snip...

Not at all - let me use an analogy, that is like saying that since you understand your own culture you cannot think there is anything "wrong" with it.

...snip...

Clearly how the studied cultures behave "works" or they would not be around to study in the first place! And as the saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Again not at all - many cultures "wither and die" whilst yet others prosper and expand their influence.

I really don't know why you keep missing what cultural relativism is all about. Is it the word "relativism"? That somehow because it uses that word someone who uses cultural relativism can't (or shouldn't) make judgements "because it's all relative"?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Not at all - let me use an analogy, that is like saying that since you understand your own culture you cannot think there is anything "wrong" with it.

I don't think that works for a cultural relativist. Only if members of the culture were complaining about their place or treatment in it while it was being studied would that analogy be valid.

Were Muslim women complaining about FGC before western anthropologists and NGO's poked their noses in?

Again not at all - many cultures "wither and die" whilst yet others prosper and expand their influence.

I don't think that's true for cultures based on, for example, Islam. If anything Europe's on the way out and America isn't far behind, given the average number of births/woman. (1.6 and 2.1 IIRC).

I really don't know why you keep missing what cultural relativism is all about. Is it the word "relativism"? That somehow because it uses that word someone who uses cultural relativism can't (or shouldn't) make judgments "because it's all relative"?

That is the meaning of cultural relativism outside of anthropology.

[Darat]

...snip...


That is the meaning of cultural relativism outside of anthropology.

As I have said before I disagree with your definition and you've still to provide any evidence that supports that your definition is one that is in common usage.

[Lonewulf]

Attacking strawmen is fun! :D

[blobru]

Attacking strawmen is fun! :D


Maybe in JREF culture.
In strawman culture it's a capital offense!

[Ivor the Engineer]

As I have said before I disagree with your definition and you've still to provide any evidence that supports that your definition is one that is in common usage.

Well I already have, since Dawkins was using it in the same way I was, and I posted a link earlier that gave the common non-anthropological usage. But here's a few more:

http://www.writingsonthewall.net/index.php?tag=cultural-relativism

...This is especially true in regard of what’s called Cultural Relativism. It’s an attractive idea to the liberal mind, because it is compatible with pluralist, multicultural ideals, and steers clear of the patronising imperial notions of (western) cultural superiority. But it’s not an idea that anyone really wants to take to extremes. Should we look on infanticide, female genital mutilation, or ritualised warfare as matters outside our moral compass because they arise in cultures outside our tradition? If so, how do we react when members of that culture live within our own society? The modern cultural relativist takes a compromise view. Practices chosen as particularly barbaric are frowned upon, especially if they involve cultural sexism. Most other practices should be supported as a part of the human right to practise one’s own culture, just as there is a human right to practise one’s own religion.

Here's an anthropologist page making the equal value claim:

http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm

Cultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of "scientific" anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. The study of a and/or any culture has to be done with a cold and neutral eye so that a particular culture can be understood at its own merits and not another culture’s. Historically, cultural relativism has had a twin theoretical approach, historical particularism. This is the notion that the proper way to study culture is to study one culture in depth. The implications of cultural relativism and historical particularism have been significant to anthropology and to the social sciences in general.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins26.html

Cultural relativism wrongly claims that each culture has its own distinct but equally valid mode of perception, thought, and choice. Cultural relativism, the opposite of the idea that moral truth is universal and objective, contends there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. There is only right and wrong as specified by the moral code of each society. Within a particular society, a standard of right and wrong can be inviolate. Cultural relativism maintains that man’s opinion within a given culture defines what is right and wrong.

Cultural relativism is the mistaken idea that there are no objective standards by which our society can be judged because each culture is entitled to its own beliefs and accepted practices. No one can object to any society’s intolerance that reflects its indigenous worldview. Because there is no objective moral truth that pertains to all people and for all times, one moral code is no better or no worse than any other (i.e., the moral equivalence doctrine). Thus, we should not impose our values on other societies. It follows that, according to cultural relativism, we cannot object to Hitler and Nazism, Mayan infant sacrifice, China’s massacre of students in Tiananmen Square, South Africa’s apartheid, genital mutilation (i.e., female circumcision) of young girls in Africa, and so on, because each of these practices is justified by the worldview within which it exists. Nor could we contend that one culture is superior to another culture. In addition, we would also be prevented from criticizing our own culture’s practices such as slavery. Further-more, within the perspective of cultural relativism, there would be no need for, or argument for, social progress. Toward what objective goal would we progress?

A google book reference: (see point 3 on page 73)

http://books.google.com/books?id=rnHn7N8ItigC&pg=RA1-PA73&lpg=RA1-PA73&dq=cultural+relativism+equal+value&source=web&ots=QfKmjshBJT&sig=yw9HZnYv5iRdjtRfTYKj1FHs8Gs

Is that enough, or do I need to provide a few more?

Just before I go to bed here's something to think about: How much Islamic criticism of Western culture do we take seriously? Why then should we expect Muslims to accept our criticisms of their cultural practices such as FGC?

[Lonewulf]

Hey, I can do the bolding thing, too!

Cultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of "scientific" anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. The study of a and/or any culture has to be done with a cold and neutral eye so that a particular culture can be understood at its own merits and not another culture’s. Historically, cultural relativism has had a twin theoretical approach, historical particularism. This is the notion that the proper way to study culture is to study one culture in depth. The implications of cultural relativism and historical particularism have been significant to anthropology and to the social sciences in general.

It's not *advocating* any particular moral code, it's talking about being impartial for scientific study. There's a difference.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hey, I can do the bolding thing, too!



It's not *advocating* any particular moral code, it's talking about being impartial for scientific study. There's a difference.

That's its fatal flaw. Humans are not impartial. A Western anthropologist is highly unlikely to EVER understand the thinking of cultures that perform FGC.

The scientific process only works because people with different opinions battle it out with evidence.

I'm sure that when Western anthropologists discuss each other's findings no Western bias remains:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

That's its fatal flaw. Humans are not impartial. A Western anthropologist is highly unlikely to EVER understand the thinking of cultures that perform FGC.

The scientific process only works because people with different opinions battle it out with evidence.

I'm sure that when Western anthropologists discuss each other's findings no Western bias remains:rolleyes:

Ah, so we should give up, and give into our biases all we can, then.

[athon]

I don't think moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) is a subset of cultural relativism. Moral relativism itself is a very broad description of a large number of different moral stances. From what I've been reading, anyone who doesn't believe in absolute or objective morality is a moral relativist. You could think that morality is relative to the individual or to the culture. You might think that this relativity has implications for whether you are entitled to judge other people or cultures, or you might think it is irrelevant to how you make your moral judgements.


I've always interpreted it as something of a subset - morals are behaviours relevant to a culture based on values. However, there are other cultural behaviours, such as customs and traditions or musical practices etc., which aren't value based as such.

Cultural groups themselves can vary in size, but all comprise of shared learning, of which a moral is one as values are inherited from the culture/s to which you subscribe.

Athon

[salista]

ive changed my mind.....i think

[salista]

i'll be back when i have navigated this space properly...oops............

i love expression though

[athon]

That's its fatal flaw. Humans are not impartial. A Western anthropologist is highly unlikely to EVER understand the thinking of cultures that perform FGC.

I don't understand. It's impossible to ever completely comprehend another's culture in its own context, so we shouldn't try?

C.R. is a tool used to do this. Sure, there's variation in how people manage it...but this doesn't mean we should discard the tool.

The scientific process only works because people with different opinions battle it out with evidence.

True. But even evidence requires a context to lend it credibility. C.R. helps understand behaviour - that's it. I gave an example before, but here's another one - in some Pacific island communities, parents don't speak to their children until they are five or six, something which we find difficult to understand. To observe it under our culture, it is immoral and degrading to the child. However, C.R. says we shouldn't observe the behaviour using our own values. To them, it makes perfect sense. In the past the communities had high infant mortality rates. It appears that they have developed a way of not becoming too attached to infants until they have reached an age where it is less likely they will die. Using this value, the behaviour is better understood. Not applying C.R., their actions make no real sense.

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't understand. It's impossible to ever completely comprehend another's culture in its own context, so we shouldn't try?

No, but western anthropologist's observations of different cultures should not be seen as impartial evidence when deciding policy.

If a culture is okay with how it treats its members and no one is complaining about their treatment, why should the west seek to end what it calls "harmful traditional practices"?

Of course, if you want to make an objective argument for why something such as FGC should be stopped, be my guest (in another thread).

C.R. is a tool used to do this. Sure, there's variation in how people manage it...but this doesn't mean we should discard the tool.

I think when an anthropologist is actually studying a culture then it is a sensible approach to take. What I dispute is that a western anthropologist could remove their negative bias towards something such as FGC. Are there any western anthropologists that have converted to Islam and had their female children circumcised?

Here's an example of how anthropologists don't view a cultural practice from a C.R. perspective at all:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5050842/Searching-for-a-middle-path.html

This is not a call for value-free science. I take it for granted that anthropologists should be advocates for human rights. We should not look on with indifference at people experiencing unnecessary suffering and danger. Starting from this assumption, I question whether anything at all is being accomplished--other than enhancing our academic or humanitarian reputations--by simply affirming that we stand against FGC. Even worse, the world passes us by while we are occupied with such posturing. Many people around the world, including women and men in the societies where FGC is practiced, are already mobilized against FGC. Others in circumcising societies remain set against abandoning it. To fail to focus our scholarly research and debate on this struggle and its ramifications is to miss an opportunity for engaged and significant scholarship of a kind that rarely comes our way. One can only hope the day will dawn when we do not debate anthropologists' opinions about FGC but their ability to provide accurate and insightful description and analysis of the campaigning against and adherence to FGC.

But of course, we are expected to believe that while they were actually studying in the culture that practices FGC, they completely suspended judgment and saw and understood the practice as those who perform it do.

Outside of anthropological study, the position of "moderate cultural relativism" is ridiculous. What it is saying is that all cultures are equal, just some are more equal (to the west) than others.

True. But even evidence requires a context to lend it credibility. C.R. helps understand behaviour - that's it. I gave an example before, but here's another one - in some Pacific island communities, parents don't speak to their children until they are five or six, something which we find difficult to understand. To observe it under our culture, it is immoral and degrading to the child. However, C.R. says we shouldn't observe the behaviour using our own values. To them, it makes perfect sense. In the past the communities had high infant mortality rates. It appears that they have developed a way of not becoming too attached to infants until they have reached an age where it is less likely they will die. Using this value, the behaviour is better understood. Not applying C.R., their actions make no real sense.

Athon

I've already said that I agree C.R. is a sensible tool to use when studying other cultures.

[athon]

No, but western anthropologist's observations of different cultures should not be seen as impartial evidence when deciding policy.

I guess that's up to the ones making the policy. It's not a shortfall of C.R. as much as a question of those trusting the anthropologist's suggestions and their relevance.

If a culture is okay with how it treats its members and no one is complaining about their treatment, why should the west seek to end what it calls "harmful traditional practices"?

This is a question again of the values of two cultures in a global society. I prize the freedom for all members of our global community to choose their own values, and hence I behave in a manner which defends that. There are others who agree with me. Can I promote it objectively? No, but I will still behave in a manner which defends that value.

Of course, if you want to make an objective argument for why something such as FGC should be stopped, be my guest (in another thread).

I'm not sure I could.

I think when an anthropologist is actually studying a culture then it is a sensible approach to take. What I dispute is that a western anthropologist could remove their negative bias towards something such as FGC. Are there any western anthropologists that have converted to Islam and had their female children circumcised?

I think that's something of a false dichotomy. If an anthropolgist could view FGC in an unbiased light, that doesn't mean they would necessarily adopt that value. They'd be neutral, studying it as a biologist might a spider consuming its young.

As to whether this is ultimately possible, I can't say one way or another. I can view it neutrally as a behaviour of an animal called 'homo sapien', but feel disgust when I view it emotionally as a fellow human. If that makes any sense.

But of course, we are expected to believe that while they were actually studying in the culture that practices FGC, they completely suspended judgment and saw and understood the practice as those who perform it do.

I can believe that. Evidentally you can't, but I can see how somebody could study it that way. That doesn't mean they automatically subscribe to it being right. It is simply a behaviour which evovled in a cultural context.

I've already said that I agree C.R. is a sensible tool to use when studying other cultures.

Then I'm lost as to what the problem is.

Athon

[Dancing David]

That would be a harm increase model:confused:

Not my model your, sorry.



If FGC really was a "very dangerous practice" then the survival of the cultures that practice it would be under threat.

No. only enough have to survive to procreate.

How many generations of women have had it done to them? Also, how do we know that women who have undergone FGC cannot experience sexual pleasure, or that they miss it if they can't?

When you cut off the end of your penis, then you can tell me is you have pleasure before we remove your scrotum.


It sounds to me like you are heaping a whole load of your culture's values onto the men and women in the cultures that practice FGC.


I aknowledge what my values are, do you want to discuss that?

What value does FMG have? They will tell you it is to keep the women from having sex. What benefit do they claim for FGM. It is circumscision only when men remove the tip of the penis and the scrotum.

You evidently didn't read my posts, now did you Ivor?

[Dancing David]

But...but... oh, alright then:(:D



Because I thought the whole point of cultural relativism was to see things as a member of the culture being studied. If you come away from culture and believe how they live their lives is wrong somehow, then clearly you never did understand that aspect of their lives in the first place.

Uh huh, find the difference between empathy and sympathy. I think you need to read up on cultural anthropology and then reread my posts.


Clearly how the studied cultures behave "works" or they would not be around to study in the first place! And as the saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sorry I don't support culturaly sanctioned genocide, torture and starvation either.

What benefit does genocide have for the culture, what benefit does torture have for the culture and what benefit does starvation have for the culture?

Ritual torture of leaders I might consider. ;)

[Dancing David]

I don't think that works for a cultural relativist. Only if members of the culture were complaining about their place or treatment in it while it was being studied would that analogy be valid.

Were Muslim women complaining about FGC before western anthropologists and NGO's poked their noses in?

Now we can talk, what makes you think that they don't?

Many have described it as trauma, or do you think that cultures that practice honor killings allow their women the power to speak freely?

Slaves often don't complain of the treatment they recieve either, does that mean they enjoy it?




I don't think that's true for cultures based on, for example, Islam. If anything Europe's on the way out and America isn't far behind, given the average number of births/woman. (1.6 and 2.1 IIRC).

I don't think you know what cultural transmission is, think of Gaul and the Romans or Korea and China. Or the Hellenic Greek revival after a thousand years.

I wonder what it means that blue jeans are worn around the world?



That is the meaning of cultural relativism outside of anthropology.

One narrow definition..
Quantum mechanics is used by people to explain a wide variety of things. Including the memory of water in homeopathy.

Do you support culturaly sanctioned torture?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Try this test to see if you're POV with respect to morality is consistent:

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/rel-quiz.php

[Dancing David]

Ivor:

"Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. "

[Dancing David]

No, but western anthropologist's observations of different cultures should not be seen as impartial evidence when deciding policy.

Duh, nor should people who approve of culturally santioned torture. Did you think the US was right to depose Mosadeh and Allende or imprison the rendition prisoners?

Those are culturaly sanctioned events.


If a culture is okay with how it treats its members and no one is complaining about their treatment, why should the west seek to end what it calls "harmful traditional practices"?

When slaves are allowed to speak freely they are usually not enamored of it.

Are you going to try to tell me that the social exchange of information in those societies is free and equal or that women have equal personal and political pwoer. I disapprove of the caste system as well.


Of course, if you want to make an objective argument for why something such as FGC should be stopped, be my guest (in another thread).

Why? It is a good point of contention, we can discuss beating women if you would prefer, it makes no difference. Or having sex with children. Or torturing prisoners to probe their guilt. Or killing infidels or believeing that black people should use an outhouse instead of a public toilet.




I think when an anthropologist is actually studying a culture then it is a sensible approach to take. What I dispute is that a western anthropologist could remove their negative bias towards something such as FGC. Are there any western anthropologists that have converted to Islam and had their female children circumcised?

Why would it matter/ have you cut off the end of your penis?


Here's an example of how anthropologists don't view a cultural practice from a C.R. perspective at all:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5050842/Searching-for-a-middle-path.html



But of course, we are expected to believe that while they were actually studying in the culture that practices FGC, they completely suspended judgment and saw and understood the practice as those who perform it do.

That is straw in your mouth. What did the researcher say?

Are women in those cultures free to speak their minds?

How about in pakistan they don't practice FGM, but they do have slaves. is that okay by you? How about children starving because of capitalism in the 1700s and the enclosure acts?


Outside of anthropological study, the position of "moderate cultural relativism" is ridiculous. What it is saying is that all cultures are equal, just some are more equal (to the west) than others.

i haven't said that at all.




I've already said that I agree C.R. is a sensible tool to use when studying other cultures.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Now we can talk, what makes you think that they don't?

Some do, some don't. It's usually the women who perform the practice on girls.

Many have described it as trauma, or do you think that cultures that practice honor killings allow their women the power to speak freely?

Childbirth is trauma too. And if the culture does not value women speaking freely, who are you to say it should?

Seems very sensible to me: make sure that when you want to hurt someone they have no rights for any complaint.

Slaves often don't complain of the treatment they recieve either, does that mean they enjoy it?

We will never know unless they tell us. I doubt their owners are going to let them though.

I don't think you know what cultural transmission is, think of Gaul and the Romans or Korea and China. Or the Hellenic Greek revival after a thousand years.

I wonder what it means that blue jeans are worn around the world?

Some people have no sense of style?

One narrow definition..
Quantum mechanics is used by people to explain a wide variety of things. Including the memory of water in homeopathy.

Do you support culturaly sanctioned torture?

I think the more relevant question is can a cultural relativist support (or denounce) culturally sanctioned torture?

[Dancing David]

Some do, some don't. It's usually the women who perform the practice on girls.

That does not mean it is something the young woman would want if she was free to choose.

Most men who beat thier wives, oppose it when they are children.




Childbirth is trauma too. And if the culture does not value women speaking freely, who are you to say it should?

You haven't read my posts have you?


Seems very sensible to me: make sure that when you want to hurt someone they have no rights for any complaint.



We will never know unless they tell us. I doubt their owners are going to let them though.



Some people have no sense of style?



I think the more relevant question is can a cultural relativist support (or denounce) culturally sanctioned torture?

Ivor as I said before you can only have a discussion about the values placed on a practice. So if you wish to discuss the issues I have already stated it will come down to values and that i support equal human rights and oppose political abuse of power.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor as I said before you can only have a discussion about the values placed on a practice. So if you wish to discuss the issues I have already stated it will come down to values and that i support equal human rights and oppose political abuse of power.

Then you are a moral objectivist or absolutist. I'm a moral objectivist - though I do enjoy arguing as a cultural/moral relativist. It makes me feel so... tolerant.

The point of this thread was to point out that cultural/moral relativism is not compatible with scepticism, unless you are going to behave impartially despite performing a sceptical appraisal of the evidence, in which case what would be the point at looking at the evidence in the first place?

E.g. A cultural/moral relativist sceptic could conclude Sylivia Browne is a lier, but could not claim she is doing anything objectively wrong!

[Darat]

...snip...

E.g. A cultural/moral relativist sceptic could conclude Sylivia Browne is a lier, but could not claim she is doing anything objectively wrong!

Nope, not at all. The "primary" culture (which I happen to share) that SB is a member of has, as a principle, that lying to other people (especially for financial gain) is wrong, therefore if I can show she is lying as a "skeptic" (whatever that is) I can say "What SB does is wrong."

That all has nothing to do with culture relativism by the way and you still have not shown why skepticism and cultural relativism are incompatible.

And I would like you to demonstrate how you can say that what SB does is "objectively" wrong. (By objectively wrong I am assuming you mean as a fact that remains constant regardless of mine or your viewpoints.)

[Dancing David]

Then you are a moral objectivist or absolutist. I'm a moral objectivist - though I do enjoy arguing as a cultural/moral relativist. It makes me feel so... tolerant.

The point of this thread was to point out that cultural/moral relativism is not compatible with scepticism, unless you are going to behave impartially despite performing a sceptical appraisal of the evidence, in which case what would be the point at looking at the evidence in the first place?

E.g. A cultural/moral relativist sceptic could conclude Sylivia Browne is a lier, but could not claim she is doing anything objectively wrong!


I would say that I am a nihilist materialist and that the evidence is lacking as too Sylvia having psychic power. I also feel that emotional abuse of vulnerable people and economic exploitation are things I don't approve of.

The point of being a sceptic is to be sceptical of all beliefs including one's own, so I do not say "That is just wrong." , I say "That appears to be a human rights violation".


PS
No I am not a moral objectivist (I just looked it up). I have not stated that human righst are an absolute, I have stated that they are the framework I use for judgement, perhaps you should read more carefully.

[Lonewulf]

Scientific morality:

E=MCevil

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nope, not at all. The "primary" culture (which I happen to share) that SB is a member of has, as a principle, that lying to other people (especially for financial gain) is wrong, therefore if I can show she is lying as a "skeptic" (whatever that is) I can say "What SB does is wrong."

That's cheating! You can't stretch your culture around individuals you wish to criticize.

That all has nothing to do with culture relativism by the way and you still have not shown why skepticism and cultural relativism are incompatible.

Because those that practice scepticism believe it is a better way of obtaining knowledge than, say, asking dead people where their bodies are, while a cultural relativist cannot say either is superior to the other as a method of gaining knowledge. To do so would be to make a value judgment.

And I would like you to demonstrate how you can say that what SB does is "objectively" wrong. (By objectively wrong I am assuming you mean as a fact that remains constant regardless of mine or your viewpoints.)

Because what she does (i.e. lie to exploit people for material wealth) cannot be wished to be universalized by a rational being.

[Ivor the Engineer]

PS
No I am not a moral objectivist (I just looked it up). I have not stated that human righst are an absolute, I have stated that they are the framework I use for judgement, perhaps you should read more carefully.

1) Some human rights are worded in an absolute sense.

2) A moral objectivist does not require absolute moral principles. See consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism).

[Darat]

...snip...


Because those that practice scepticism believe it is a better way of obtaining knowledge than,

...snip...

I would disagree with the "believe" - I know (given all the philosophical caveats of "know").



say, asking dead people where their bodies are, while a cultural relativist cannot say either is superior to the other as a method of gaining knowledge.


...snip...

Of course they can, there is no reason at all why they couldn't.



To do so would be to make a value judgment.



And?



...snip...

Because what she does (i.e. lie to exploit people for material wealth) cannot be wished to be universalized by a rational being.

Sorry this I just do not understand.

[Dancing David]

1) Some human rights are worded in an absolute sense.

2) A moral objectivist does not require absolute moral principles. See consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism).


I believe in equality of exchange in relationships and that causing pain in others should be avoided. These are not absolutes as per the definition of 'moral objectivist', I aknowledge the bias I have. I believe that human righst should be universal, but that is my personal opinion. I have my personal beliefs and my personal rationals but i don't believe in universal morals. I believe that game theory provides an argument for equality.

I believe that each situation is unique and interdependent, and therefore one should consider the setting. But then I also say things like "So did thousands of other people and they didn't do what you did."

PS I can't say I agree with consequentialism either. Mores are idiomatic and a group context. I can't say I am a moral ethicist either, although that is closer.

[Darat]

1) Some human rights are worded in an absolute sense.

2) A moral objectivist does not require absolute moral principles. See consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism).

Don't know if your wiki link covers it but "consequentialism" does not get solve the problem of having to assert what is a "good" value before you can use it to come to any conclusion whether something is morally "right" or "wrong".

[Lonewulf]

No one laughed at my funny. :<

Because what she does (i.e. lie to exploit people for material wealth) cannot be wished to be universalized by a rational being.
Sounds like you go for Emanuel Kant's morality arguments. Nothing wrong with that.

[Darat]

I would have laughed but I didn't know if, within your culture, it was funny or not so couldn't make a judgment on whether it was funny or not.

[Lonewulf]

I would have laughed but I didn't know if, within your culture, it was funny or not so couldn't make a judgment on whether it was funny or not.
Well, I know scientifically that my funny was funny, and that it's a Universal Human Right to be able to take a joke. =D

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't know if your wiki link covers it but "consequentialism" does not get solve the problem of having to assert what is a "good" value before you can use it to come to any conclusion whether something is morally "right" or "wrong".

I'm not 100% sure, but doesn't Utilitarianism solve that problem?

DD, it's aim is the same as the "optimal" result from game theory you mentioned.

This can then be used to derive other ways of how to and not to behave, while fully taking into account the context that C.R. supposedly does.

Lonewulf,

Yep, that's Kant's reasoning. It seems pretty solid to me; what rational being could wish that everyone had the right to behave as Sylvia Browne does?

[fls]

No one laughed at my funny. :<

I have been trying, when a (admittedly arbitrary and having more to do with my schedule than any rationally chosen value) period of time has passed without someone commenting on a specific clever post, to draw a little attention to what may have been an inadvertent oversight (is that redundant?) by posting some sort (at minimum a smiley face) of response. This is balanced against my fear of being called to task for making an off-topic post.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well, I know scientifically that my funny was funny, and that it's a Universal Human Right to be able to take a joke. =D

I'm sure I read somewhere that making Jokes is a universal trait (or is it value?) among all cultures.

Though as a cultural relativist when-it-suits-me, I believed your joke was not funny enough to comment on;)













(Damn! I just did. See, I told you C.R. was inconsistent.)

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

Yep, that's Kant's reasoning. It seems pretty solid to me; what rational being could wish that everyone had the right to behave as Sylvia Browne does?

My only problem with that form of argument is that, logically, if you view it a sort of way, homosexuality could be considered a crime.

If every person, universally, had sex with only people of the same sex (and not the opposite), then the entire race would die out.

(Of course, admittedly, you can impregnate people without sexual intercourse thanks to medical technology, and you can always have those "straight relationships that don't work out", but regardless... if you live in an age where that medical technology isn't possible, and no one had those "straight relationships", then homosexuality could then be perceived as immoral)

I'm sure I read somewhere that making Jokes is a universal trait (or is it value?) among all cultures.

Though as a cultural relativist when-it-suits-me, I believed your joke was not funny enough to comment on


Since it's been scientifically proven to be funny and universally is funny, then it's your problem, not the joke's. ;)

[athon]

It seems pretty solid to me; what rational being could wish that everyone had the right to behave as Sylvia Browne does?

By what objective rule could you say nobody has that right?

Again, it all comes down to the hierarchy of values cultures and their individuals have. There is no system against which values can be objectively evaluated, therefore all values are subjective and cannot be compared.

True, if all people valued emotions over critical thinking, prizing story telling over discovering reality, then I personally feel it would be a rather sad world and would cost many other values we take for granted. I can't see how it would advance our technology or how we could solve problems if all people had S.B.'s values. Luckily this isn't the case.

So where do skeptics fit in with C.T.? We promote a value and try to encourage people to see the worth in it. Many people value emotional reasoning over critical thinking - while they also value the results of critical thinking, such as medicine and technology, they weren't produced as a result of their valuing the thinking that went into it. Therefore it is incorrect to even say 'you need to value critical thinking or you won't get things produced by science'. So long as somebody values skepticism, they will still benefit from what that value produces.

C.R. doesn't mean cultures cannot promote their values; it means it is meaningless to promote your value as being 'better' than another's outside of a context. This is how socities change and evolve - different groups promoting, either passively or aggressively, their own subjective values. Some groups will take them up. Others will not.

It is, of course, complicated. But C.R. provides a useful tool to understand why people behave in certain ways, and that it has to do with an order of things they value.

Athon

[athon]

I'm sure I read somewhere that making Jokes is a universal trait (or is it value?) among all cultures.

Humour is a fairly universal behaviour across the human species. Laughing at an uncomfortable or unusual situation seems to be biological and have to do with socialising. Jokes, on the other hand, are not universal. I know of a particular selection of social groups (I recount second hand from somebody who worked in several Aboriginal communities in South Australia) who don't have 'jokes' as we see them. They find some situations funny, but don't recount stories or tell fictitious accounts for humour value. They do have stories they tell which could be considered funny, but actually laughing at them is seriously disrespectful.

So even the telling of a joke is not a universal value. Humour - the innate behaviour which makes us feel something about that value - is universal, but isn't a value in itself.

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

Humour is a fairly universal behaviour across the human species. Laughing at an uncomfortable or unusual situation seems to be biological and have to do with socialising. Jokes, on the other hand, are not universal. I know of a particular selection of social groups (I recount second hand from somebody who worked in several Aboriginal communities in South Australia) who don't have 'jokes' as we see them. They find some situations funny, but don't recount stories or tell fictitious accounts for humour value. They do have stories they tell which could be considered funny, but actually laughing at them is seriously disrespectful.

So even the telling of a joke is not a universal value. Humour - the innate behaviour which makes us feel something about that value - is universal, but isn't a value in itself.

Athon

I find that incredibly hard to believe. I've found this (http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_aboriginal_dreamtime/index1.htm) page which refers to aboriginal stories that include the concept of telling jokes:

...But Gurukmun just sat there, big and fat and green. he had all the water, and he wasn't going to part with any of it. How were they going to get the water back? The Possum suggested frightening him. If Gurukmun had a fright, then he might cough some of the water out. But how do you frighten the biggest Frog in all the world? The goanna thought that if someone could tickle Gurukmun's nose, then he might sneeze some of the water out. But how were they to reach his nose? It was such a long way up, and anyway, he probably wasn't ticklish. Then the wise old Wombat had an idea. What it we make him laugh? If Gurukmun laughed, then surely all the water would come gushing out. The animals thought about it. It was the best idea, and if they didn't soon do something, they would all shrivel up and die. So it was decided. They would make him laugh. The Kookaburra was the first to try. he would tell Gurukmun his funniest jokes - he would surely laugh at those, they always made Kookaburras laugh. He flew up to Gurukmun.

[Ivor the Engineer]

My only problem with that form of argument is that, logically, if you view it a sort of way, homosexuality could be considered a crime.

If every person, universally, had sex with only people of the same sex (and not the opposite), then the entire race would die out.

(Of course, admittedly, you can impregnate people without sexual intercourse thanks to medical technology, and you can always have those "straight relationships that don't work out", but regardless... if you live in an age where that medical technology isn't possible, and no one had those "straight relationships", then homosexuality could then be perceived as immoral)

All rules of thumb are going to break down at some point, which is why I prefer consequentialist-type philosophies of morality. They take into account context implicitly and are not reduced to having to accept absurd possibilities like C.R. is. On the down-side they are impossible to apply perfectly since we only have educated guesses about the parameters involved in the judgment and more importantly, the exact outcome of our actions.

[athon]

I find that incredibly hard to believe. I've found this (http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_aboriginal_dreamtime/index1.htm) page which refers to aboriginal stories that include the concept of telling jokes:

No offence, but you do know that there is a greater diversity of Indigenous cultures as there are European ones? It has amongst the greatest diversity of languages in any one geographical area, for instance.

I don't blame you for thinking that one Indigenous culture is so similar to the rest you can use such an example, but without trying to be offensive I really have to say it's an uninformed view. There are indeed a number of Aboriginal cultures which have humorous stories and anecdotes. However, there are some which simply don't. Hell, believe it or not there are apparently (and I say apparently as I am going on a conversation I had with a culturalist who worked with this mob) some cultures which don't have in their native culture a language framework for questions. To request information, you bring up the topic you want to know something about and talk 'in circles'; I can understand this in some way from direct experience where in order to discuss a topic with some up far North Queensland you do a lot of waiting and talk with a lot of 'suggestions'.

Fascinating stuff.

Athon

[Darat]

I'm not 100% sure, but doesn't Utilitarianism solve that problem?

...snip...

No. :) Seriously it doesn't, after all there are many different "optimums" in different versions of Utilitarianism .

[Ivor the Engineer]

No offence, but you do know that there is a greater diversity of Indigenous cultures as there are European ones? It has amongst the greatest diversity of languages in any one geographical area, for instance.

I don't blame you for thinking that one Indigenous culture is so similar to the rest you can use such an example, but without trying to be offensive I really have to say it's an uninformed view. There are indeed a number of Aboriginal cultures which have humorous stories and anecdotes. However, there are some which simply don't. Hell, believe it or not there are apparently (and I say apparently as I am going on a conversation I had with a culturalist who worked with this mob) some cultures which don't have in their native culture a language framework for questions. To request information, you bring up the topic you want to know something about and talk 'in circles'; I can understand this in some way from direct experience where in order to discuss a topic with some up far North Queensland you do a lot of waiting and talk with a lot of 'suggestions'.

Fascinating stuff.

Athon

No offence taken. Have you got any web links that mention a study of any culture with no jokes I could look at? I've had a quick search and could not find any.

[Ivor the Engineer]

No. :) Seriously it doesn't, after all there are many different "optimums" in different versions of Utilitarianism .

But as with physical theories, some are more "beautiful" than others.

[Lonewulf]

I brought up the jokes thing as a joke. You guys take things way too seriously sometimes.

Although, admittedly, I'm curious now.

[Dancing David]

I'm not 100% sure, but doesn't Utilitarianism solve that problem?

DD, it's aim is the same as the "optimal" result from game theory you mentioned.

That is just an argument that I can use to support equality. I hold it as a personal beleif. If I use over arching labels I use material nihilist pagan buddist.


This can then be used to derive other ways of how to and not to behave, while fully taking into account the context that C.R. supposedly does.

Choices will always be personal and based on the inner dynamic. Empathy is the start of equality.

Lonewulf,

Yep, that's Kant's reasoning. It seems pretty solid to me; what rational being could wish that everyone had the right to behave as Sylvia Browne does?
Again a rational being will not always behave rationally.

[Dancing David]

I'm sure I read somewhere that making Jokes is a universal trait (or is it value?) among all cultures.

Though as a cultural relativist when-it-suits-me, I believed your joke was not funny enough to comment on;)


(Damn! I just did. See, I told you C.R. was inconsistent.)

Usually humor is based upon 'cultural inversion'. We laugh when our cultures is turned upside down.

[athon]

No offence taken. Have you got any web links that mention a study of any culture with no jokes I could look at? I've had a quick search and could not find any.

None at hand, sorry. I could look, I guess, if this was a really important discussion I had to win you over in. But a), I'm not certain I'd find any, and b) I don't have the time to devote to a whole heap of research. The physical notes I do have are general and support my claims of diversity in their cultures and many of the things we need to remain aware of in cultural conflicts in terms of words, body language etc.

Additionally, the situation of the culture I was talking about I learned from a culturalist who had worked there in the 80s. I can't recall the tribal names or direct locality. I just recall it was an interesting story, much like the one where there are some groups who don't have language components for questions. Since my background is education and science, and not anthropology, I just took the information as interesting anecdotes. However the authority we were talking to was somebody who had worked in the outback with a large number of communities and was respected in the field for being the one to talk to about cultural differences.

If that alone doesn't carry enough weight for you (afterall, you're getting it third hand through me), that's ok. It's not important enough one way or another in terms of the overall discussion on C.R. I thought it made for something interesting to consider, though.

Athon

[athon]

I brought up the jokes thing as a joke. You guys take things way too seriously sometimes.

Although, admittedly, I'm curious now.

It is interesting how that happens in this place. Even trolls occasionally inspire some excellent discussion.

I'm now wondering if I could hunt down any books this woman wrote and if she said anything about the group who didn't share anecdotes in the name of humour. I do have to emphasise that, from what I understand, it's not that the group didn't find things funny. It was just that they didn't invent stories or myths for the purpose of laughter, or seem to retell humorous stories for the purpose of laughing at them, which are essentially what jokes are.

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

Okay, slight change of tack...

Can anyone explain how C.R. is a more optimal philosophy to guide an individual's actions (or inactions), opposed to a consequentialist one?

[Darat]

Okay, slight change of tack...

Can anyone explain how C.R. is a more optimal philosophy to guide an individual's actions (or inactions), opposed to a consequentialist one?

Define "optimal" please.... (only half joking).

[quixotecoyote]

Okay, slight change of tack...

Can anyone explain how C.R. is a more optimal philosophy to guide an individual's actions (or inactions), opposed to a consequentialist one?

It's sort of the same way utilitarianism is a better way to conceptualize existence than solipsism, if you get my reference.