Blake - Don't judge alien cultures

The BBQ Pit
21

Who said excuse?

I believe it is totally FGM is fucking abhorrent. My feelings on this are very fucking strong.

However, other cultures’ individuals’ feelings on what is right or wrong can be equally as strong as mine are about FGM. Like, for example, women driving cars, insulting prophets, holding hands in public. Strong enough to raise mobs that beat people to death.

Now, this doesn’t make sense to me, but it makes sense to them. Their sense of outrage is as palpably strong as ours is against

So we have a logical choice: either say “these people go against a fundamental moral code, and they are therefore morally inferior”, or we say “these people go against [my culture’s] particular moral code but I have no way of comprehending the way they think”.

Acknowledging this doesn’t mediate against one’s personal outrage, as I’m sure you realise.

22

Erratum: “Their sense of outrage is as palpably strong as ours is against FGM et al, if not stronger.”

23

Achilles, you have lost me. Herodotus is a historian, not someone offering a philosophical opinion on sexuality. Do you disagree with any and all sources of anthropological information, or just those that don’t support your argument? I’ll tell you what, you explain to me the origin of the practice.

From what you have said here, I guess both anthropology and archaeology are exercises in futility, since most often we have observers from a different cultural origin the one being examined.

That is really going to piss off Indiana Jones.

24

What about a third option? Perhaps replace ‘people’ in the first one of the two you offered with ‘practise’?

This practise goes against a fundamental moral code, and it is morally inferior

25

Exactly.

26

I am well aware of Herodotus “The Father of History” and his works. I simply think that as you are a product of a craw-thumping holier-than-thou Western Civilization, Herodotus was the product of a Greek Civilization that (at least during modernity) is notorious for its views on female sexuality.

27

So what’s the code?

28

**Waverly[b/] - Your point regarding Archaeology and Anthropology is well taken, and to a certain extent, true.
That is the inherent problem with these diciplines - they are scientific studies, filtered through unsuitable cultural media, and then published. However, since the alternative in the majority of cases is to not have any knowledge of these people and events, these diciplines are useful.

29

jjimm, I said excuse. I was answering a potential question, not putting words in your mouth.

I think we agree that morality is subjective, correct me if I’m wrong. Where I disagree is that this would prevent us from establishing any type of cross-cultural frame of reference. I don’t think it does. We can both recognize the FGM is a culturally embedded practice, and that it deprives individuals of rights most of us agree should be protected.

And FGM, by definition, isn’t something everyone in the culture must endure. It’s upheld by one group who espouses dominance over another - a sure sign that something is wrong. If everyone were whacking off their genitals, I’d have a harder time arguing that rights were being violated.

30

I must leave this debate for the moment. Waverly, jjimm, UnwrittenNocturne - thanks for the input. Unforunately I will not be back until Tuesday, so hoping we can take this up again then ? perhaps in GD.

Thanks all.

31

That raises the problem of Jewish male circumcision, which (if I may twist your words a little here for rhetorical purposes, and acknowledging that the level of mutilation and disability afterwards is considerably) is also “upheld by one group who espouses dominance over another” - namely adults over babies. I don’t like the sound of that either, but I don’t hear much moral outrage over it.

32

OK, I give up. I cannot debate, in a meaningful fashion, anyone who accepts such great relativity that anything, and I do mean anything, is permitted and may not be condemned in the name of culture.

I will leave you to this. I am too angry, too confused. I cannot understand a person who would allow anything on this basis. I cannot understand and have no wish to do so.

The thing is, Achilles, that you are claiming noo ethical code, no moralality of your own. You cannot have. To have a moral code obliges the judgement of others. Non-judgemental is just another way of saying non-ethical.

Just in case you were wondering though, and reading my posts you may be forgiven for thinking so, I am not part of the religious right. Rather an atheist individualist. Whatever that is. And I do claim the right to judge, to condemn, not a people, but sometimes what they do. I think that it is my duty as a human being.

Unlike Waverly, if I read an earlier post correctly, I do hold for inherent, natural rights. On this basis I make my judgement.

33

Sure. Run away, Achilles :wink:

jjimm, Male circumcision alters the appearance of the body, but does not fundamentally alter (or destroy) the function of the body part in question. Without bringing up numerous past debates, it has also been proposed that it offers health benefits to the person who has it done.

I also don’t see the aspect of dominance that you do. The parents aren’t controlling their children through circumcision, or in any way affecting their behavior.

34

Welcome to the board, mighty Achilles. I don’t want to address the specific example, but I will disagree with your general proposition.

Should we not judge Apartheit, because South Africa had a different culture? Should we not judge African colonialism? How about the genocide in Cambodia and Nazi Germany? I don’t think it’s wrong for us to judge these things. Furthermore, Achilles, I would guess that you don’t think so, either.

35

(My emphasis) You’re misrepresenting what Achilles has said. Please read my post above where Achilles agrees with me with the word “Exactly”. That gives you enough information to indicate that your statement above is incorrect.

All I’m asking for is a definition of “the inherent, natural rights”. I’ll probably agree with them.

36

In Finland (which would be inside my cultural sphere), there recently was a lot of talk about a man named Jammu Siltavuori, who had raped and killed two little girls, being released on probation. I, of course, along with other Finns, believe these actions to be abhorrent, and he was judged (many say insufficiently, but that is not the point of this thread) as according to laws.

Earlier in this thread, **Achilles[/n] said:

Does this only extend to members of other cultures? If I, by Achilles’ definition, am unable to understand why people in other countries mutilate the genitalia of women, then what makes me more capable of understanding a person of my own culture committing a horrific act? I mean, I certainly don’t know what the fuck was going through Jammu’s head when he did what he did. I bet no-one can, except possibly for Jammu himself. Yet I judge him inside my head - and Finnish justice system judged him in the real world.

What makes the cultural difference so much more important than the basic difference between people?

It’s like what UnWrittenNocturne said about not understanding what went on with Stalin and Kosovo. Achilles stuck to his dogma about judgement being only valid within one’s cultural sphere. So, aren’t the Serbs and the Russians within our cultural sphere now? I don’t know anything particular about Serbian or Russian culture which excuses mass murder. Furthermore, Achilles spoke of Christian missionaries of 17th, 18th and 19th century going to Africa to save the heathens - well, those missionaries were products of a different culture, possibly one more different to us than the contemporary Serbian or Russian culture. What make Achilles worthy of judging them? Because what he said about Western psyche and so forth sounded an awfully lot like judgement to me.

37

Oh bugger me and my lack of previewing and this forum habit of bolding other people’s names.

38

I’m running away too now.

To go and drink beer. (I apologise to all who think it is morally reprehensible to sink six or seven pints of Guinness of an evening. ;))

Have a lovely weekend!

39

Uhm…can anybody tell me what “craw-thumping” is?

40

A couple of quick points and then I, too, must take off for the weekend.

First, there is no such thing as “culture.” Culture is an arbitrary intellectual construct. The idea of culture is useful as an analytical tool but on a basic level, everyone has his or her own unique culture. For example, we speak of “Western Culture.” By this we mean countries that share certain intellectual traditions. However, not everyone in each country in the “western sphere” shares every tradition. Italy, has its own unique culture but, once again, there are no cultural elements that every Italian shares. Each region of Italy has its own cultural attributes, including unique foods, attitudes and even language. In Sienna, each neighborhood has unique cultural traditions. Of course, even families and individuals have special cultural traditions.

So where do you stop? At what arbitrary level do you become incapable of making a judgment?

Radical multiculturalism, which is what Achilles is expounding, is ultimately incoherent because it, too, has its own set of values that it believes everyone should abide by. For example, radical multiculturalism would hold that it is immoral to make value judgments about other cultures. This is in itself a value judgment. For example, how can you make the following statement?

**

How can you make such a value judgment, Achilles? He’s speaking from his own cultural tradition. His perspective is just as valid as yours, isn’t it?

Would his point of view still be bigoted if he were French? Australian? Argentinian? Burmese? How are you in any position to make such a judgement?

I’m not saying that it is usually a good idea to make value judgements about other cultures, only that it is possible. Your attitude ultimately means that the West has no right to interfere in – or even really comment on – things like genocide in Rwanda or ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Hell, the American South had its own unique culture, so I guess you would have thought it “bigoted” to claim that chattel slavery was inherently immoral.

The bottom line is that there are a few principles – not many, but a few – that are “morally superior” and that ought to be imposed on other cultures. We can argue about what specifically they are and how they ought to be expressed in a particular case, but there are some.

That what my cultural perspective says, anyway. So if you don’t like it, you’ll just have to suck it up.