Cultural Relavitism

[mockney piers]

Actually no quids that's bollocks. That's exactly, exactly like saying Iraq is a liberal democracy.

[????]

Whilst I take some of your point - fostered on a defeated enemy. Your 'exactly' is complete bollocks. Pre-fisrt World War Germany had reasonable enfranchisement, regular elections, one of the world's first stabs at a welfare state (looked at with envy by Lloyd George), well established unions, independent press, a modern economy, independent globally respected academic institutions, etc etc

But we're off topic.

I'm pretty much in agreement with DC on this.

[mockney piers]

I would certainly encourage all countries to be secular and for relogion to be a personal thing.

Within a secular society we, judging by reactions to the atheist (lizard) brigade on here, should tiptoe around the personal sensibilities of the religious.

We (lizard kind) tend to say to Christians 'you reserve the right to be a bit medieval' and to Muslims 'you reserve the right to be a bit errrr medieval'. Not sure how one is tiptoeing and the other not. I think this is all misinformation beloved of the daily mail keeping the myths of banned Christmases alive.

[????]

And of course the non-western religous could, to some extent justifibly, point to some of the excesses of 'secular rationalism' - Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China.

[david_carnell]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm pretty much in agreement with DC on this.

*faints with shock*

Never thought I'd live to see the day! Glad to have onboard the idealists bandwagon Quidsy. Heh.

[????]

Same destination different paths, as I once said to Sean

[mockney piers]

Actually not really. The Weimar republic was not foisted on a defeated enemy, it was created politically within a militarily defeated state that didn't necessarily consider itself so, that thought its position due to an international conspiracy where it was the victim (actually partially true in both cases) and that was desperately trying to step back from the brink of revolutions and total civil war, where various warlords and political experiments were happening and generally failing and militias and criminal gangs filled the power vaccuum and formed the nucleus of future power centres, but apart from that they were different I guess.

[mockney piers]

As for secular rationalism, I don't buy that either. Despite explicit claims to atheism, I think all three were much more deeply rooted in the traditions and symbolism of religious eschatology than with anything to do with rationalism.

But apart from the detail I too stand in yours and DC's corner.

[silverfox]

Perhaps I am guilty of 'intellectual masturbation' magpie but only in the sense that I'm trying to make the point that there is a difference between something being 'incorrect' and being 'wrong' in an absolute sense. There is also the mistake of saying something is 'wrong' in the sense of "I don't agree with it".

You say, magpie, that it's patronising to refer to the cultural background by way of understanding/justifying/condoning what we perceive to be unacceptable - but then you go on to extol our 'superior' western liberal democratic model thereby overriding the customs of millions of 'less fortunate' people.

There are people who slit their bottom lip and insert a wooden plate in some custom/ritual that they deem desirable. People who elongate their necks with rings in the name of beauty. People who, less commonly now, bind their feet. All these things may seem strange to us, primitive even, if that's not too supercilious a thing to say, but in what sense are they 'wrong'?

Female circumcision is 'wrong' because we regard it as a barbaric practice to a defenceless child that has no place in a modern world. Unfortunately, many of the adherents of the practice do not live in our cosy modern world.

[*Bob*]

Footbinding does not belong in the same bag as the neck or lip 'thing'.

Footbinding = wrong.

[DaveR]

How about this as a decent starting point for non-negotiable principles:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

[SeanMacGabhann]

and look where THAT got us!

Oh, I see...

[mockney piers]

Those founding fathers had a way with words....mind you, that creator bit...

[mockney piers]

All above edited for typing one handed on an iPhone in sainsburys with a child slung across my front.

[Jeremy]

DaveR, I don't think it's helpful at all. It starts with a claim that God has determined a universal set of human rights - i.e. an artificial construct.

[Magpie]

Silverfox - the point is that on some issues I have a subjective opinion and don't feel the need to qualify - FGM is one.

[silverfox]

Fair enough Magpie - nothing 'wrong' with that.

[Ladymuck]

All I know, is that it is my intuition (i.e. a type of moral guidance) and not my brain (i.e. logic) which determines what is right or wrong.

A story:

A few years ago, in Vietnam, I witnessed a man persistently beat his little girl (about 5/6 years old). I did not use rational thought to determine whether this man was entitled to act as he did. Was he perhaps instilling some discipline into his child, for example? Or, was his conduct deemed acceptable behaviour in his country? Or had this small girl perhaps herself committed some worse atrocity to "deserve" such treatment even? The man was on his own property (a boat) and the mother simply watched as her child was being systematically beaten, kicked, and punched etc.

So there I was in this man's country. He was on his own property beating his own child. As far as I understand the position, it is common practice within Vietnamese culture to beat children in pursuance of educating them. Many, though certainly not all, believe, that by so beating, their children will become good people. Here, in the UK we cannot beat children in this way.

My brain (i.e. logic) signalled to me that, under the doctrine of cultural relativism, this man's actions (which stemmed from a moral system which said that it was OK - nay, his duty - to beat his child), had to be respected by me as his belief was ? albeit very different from mine - equally valid and certainly no less right.

So, what did I do? Well, all rational thought and logic was immediately jettisoned. Instinct compelled me to leap onto this man's boat. I then pulled the child away from him and proceeded to give him the "best" beating my hobbit-like frame could. I did this for a few minutes, not to mention, swear, hiss and spit at him while a group of British tourists and his wife merely looked on.

Now, before any of you start sending me "hate PMs", may I just say that I am not proud of my behaviour ? though having said that, somewhat perversely, I would probably do the same again if faced with a similar situation.

So the question here is: is the system in which I live better than that Vietnamese man's? If yes, then morality comes into play which means that I was correct to use my moral guidance and step in. If no, because according to the theory on cultural relativism morality is subjective depending on a person's culture and neither his nor my system are better than one another's, then my actions were grossly inappropriate and I am nothing more than an arrogant Westerner telling the Vietnamese "how to get their house in order" (to quote the eloquent DC).

I followed my morals and chose to intervene but, by doing so, dispensed with the rules of cultural relativism that no one moral system is best. HOW can this concept of cultural relativism prevail over humankind's integral sense of morality? I honestly don't think that it can! And my experience is evidence of this. I just could not sit back and do nothing - any more than some of you could stand by and watch the forcible circumcision of females. The sight of that little girl being beaten was totally shocking and abhorrent to me. In essence, my moral guidance told me ? f-uck this logic, it is WRONG.

So, if cultural relativism is to be accepted as a concept, then (it is my humble opinion) that logic prevails and morality must, as a consequence, be abandoned. If morality is to prevail, then it is cultural relativism (and therefore logic) which has to be thrown out of the window along with many of the other "...isms".

Keep editing because pea brain has gone into semi-meltdown mode and I can't even understand my own post!:-S

[silverfox]

Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck up on one or two points above?

[nashoi]

The problem I have trying to follow this thread is exactly who Us and Them actually are.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written by a UN commission made up of representatives from Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, Uruguay and Yugoslavia back in 1948.

Criticizing people who fail to live up to such universal standards is not western arrogance, but assuming the west is the only place they are valued is.

[Ladymuck]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck up

> on one or two points above?

Don't you dare - I did state at the outset that this topic was too complex for my brain.;-)

It's an excellent thread though DC.

[silverfox]

Oh I don't know about it being too complex for you Ladymuck, you seem to have no problem getting your point across as far as I, and the Vietnamese, can see.

[Ladymuck]

...ahem...

*blushes profusely*

[katie1997]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Errr ... anyone brave enough to pick Ladymuck

> up

> > on one or two points above?

silverfox - I agree with Ladymuck. Difficult situation but well done for doing what you did. I lived in Asia for a number of years, its hard to turn your back to some things (not saying the West is perfect either). I certainly don't consider myself 'superior' in any way for having lived in the UK/Western society. I do find it exceptionally difficult to witness cruelty in any form, especially towards children and animals.

> Don't you dare - I did state at the outset that

> this topic was too complex for my brain.;-)

Ladymuck, that is not true - your views are as valid as the next persons. Its clearly not too complex for you!

> It's an excellent thread though DC.

Agreed - very thought-provoking.

[????]

By deduction...if you believe in cultural realtivism then you are culturally entitled to express your western liberal view point with no need for discussion or guilt (which I think was Magpie's point); if you don't, then clearly on Female Circumsicion you are right. Ergo The problem is Cultural relativism?

Stella clears the mind I find...at the moment ;-)

Not good for spelling though