Lissa: It’s part of my culture to criticize aspects of other cultures I find wrong. Are you saying I have no right to express my culture in this way? Are you not thereby criticizing my culture?
You did notice, did you not, that these statements are contradictory?
You first claim there is no right to condemn, judge, or criticize any culture. Then you almost immediatly claim there is nothing wrong in being critical of one culture in particular - that of present-day America.
You are trying to have it both ways. You want to frame the debate such that no one can criticize any aspect of any other culture, but still preserve the right to criticize America.
What is to prevent us from using the “oh, that’s just part of the culture and is above criticism” argument on Americans who criticize some aspect of America as on foreigners who do the same?
We apparently have the right to tell the French to go pound sand if they object to the US doing anything we darn well please in the world - it is just part of our culture, and no one from outside the culture has any right to complain. From what basis does an American lodge an objection if we decide to nuke Pyongyang?
Unless you are willing to admit that there is some standard that can be applied across cultures and still be valid, in which case we can equally well apply it to any culture we like, our own or anyone else’s.
Regards,
Shodan
…and if its not right to be critical of other cultures/peoples, on what basis does an organization like the UN exist? How does the Charter have any legitimacy, and what’s the point of human rights in the world? All these things derive to some extent in setting basic standards of behavior for cultures/peoples/nations and holding them to those base standards of behaviors. There is plenty of room for cultures to assert their own unique qualities, but still hold them to some cross cultural standards of acceptable behavior
I know you disagree with me on this, but there ARE basic behaviors that are considered acceptable or not acceptable that cross MOST cultures today (at least most cultures that are in tune and cross pollinate with the rest of the world). There is forming a globalized view point on certain basic things…things like genocide, murder and rape, treatment of prisoners in times of war, even (emerging) labor laws and practices and womens/childrens rights. It started off as a western thing, but its becoming a GLOBAL thing as more and more peoples/cultures/nations buy into this basic set of ideals or behaviors. Sure, many people’s BREAK these basics…and when they do they are criticized for them.
Its the basis by which a European can criticize America and Americans for things like capital punishment or the recent war in Iraq. Other wise we could just play the ‘culture’ card to get out of jail free. Its the basis by which I, as an American can criticize a nation like North Korea or decry the slaughter in the Sudan.
Sometimes such criticisms are an active or vocal thing…like the protests in Europe against America. Sometimes its a more subtle thing, like an individuals decision not to purchase goods or services in a country who’s policies or behaviors are distasteful. And taken to extremes it can be a bad thing (like in the case of American’s boycotting French products…or even worse when it becomes a racist thing)…but overall, its a necessary thing to hold up cultures/peoples to SOME standard of behavior, and to call a savage a savage when its appropriate. A good look at a nation like North Korea should be all one needs to see the truth of this.
-XT
It is completely besides the point to debate how pervasive foot binding was in China. IT DOESN’T MATTER. Physically mutilating children is an abhorant practice that is rightly condemned.
Suppose that the government of our close neighber, Mexico, decided that anyone with Indian ancestry should be exterminated and they set up a program to do so. Would you advocate that the US stand by and not interfere since it would be wrong to judge another culture? Suppose they decided to include any Americans (Indian or not) currently in Mexico be included in the execution. Are we still to sit back and say that we can’t be critical? To take action requires that a judgement be made.
It always seems to boil down to relativism vs. absolute right/wrong.
I’ll stick with an absolute right/wrong. Kinda like err on the side of caution, if you will.
To a certain extent, yes. But your culture is also mine, and thus, being a member, I can criticize my own culture.
I can criticize my sister, but if you would do so, it would be rude. Same principal applies. I am an American, thus I can happily bitch and snipe about my own culture.
A Briton can criticize England. A Swede can criticize Sweden. A Canadian can criticize Canada, and so on-- there’s nothing wrong with finding fault with your own people.
Nuking a country is not exactly the same thing as oppression of women within a culture, is it? I thought we were talking about culture and its practices. In the modern era, war is not simply invading a nation, having two armies duke it out, and taking over the land. There are greater issues involved. A nuke has the potential to harm the entire planet. Neck rings only harm the women forced to wear them.
I do not believe that there is.
The UN has very little power, which has been amply demonstrated by the current administration. All they seem capable of is issuing proclamations condemning certain acts.
But there is such a thing as international law, which, by belonging to the UN, a nation has agreed to obey. Membership within the UN gives tacit agreement to have the actions of your nation (but not necessarily your culture) examined by the other members and judged accordingly.
The UN also has the duty to attempt to stabalize the world, which means that acts like invasion of other nations must be dealt with accordingly.
The actions of a nation, such as going to war, are not necessarily what I am discussing when it comes to culture. FGM harms no one outside of the group in which it is practiced. A war causes harm and destabilization in a region which can affect the fates of many nations. At that point, they have the right to interfere or criticize.
I am aware that this may, at first, seem to be contradictory, but I don’t believe that it is. Cultural practices within a group, such as footbinding or FGM do not cause any destabilization. War does. There is a difference.
I have seen little evidence of these standards.
With capital punishment, yes, that’s cultural, but war is something entirely different, as I said above.
But it accomplishes nothing! In my opinion, trying to understand a culture will go much further than a simple condemnation.
The slaughter in Sudan breaks my heart. I wish there were something that could be done. But, most likely, nothing will be done. Unless it threatens our national interests in some way, we will sit back and decry until the killers satisfy their bloodlust, and then move on as if it never happened. We’ll do the same during the next genocide.
The boycott of French products accomplished nothing but making us look silly in the eyes of the world. We’ve been boycotting Fidel Castro for decades now, and it hasn’t done a damn thing except make Cuban cigars more difficult to acquire.
Boycotts of all nations which violate human rights is utterly impossible because of the vast disruption it would cause to our economy. Nor are most people interested enough to do so. What do they care if their tennis shoes were made in a factory by children who work all day for a few pennies, beaten if they don’t work fast enough? What do they care if that nation imprisons its women or mutilates them to keep them sexually chaste? They just want the shoes.
Name-calling only serves to stir up bad feelings, especially since we’re not interested enough to actually do something about the issue.
Do you really think we would do anything? Our policy on Sudan seems to be “stand by, and not interfere” at this point. All of our hand-wringing over how awful this genocide is amounts to a hill of beans if we’re not going to do anything about it.
Perhaps we would, due to Mexico’s proximity, because we wouldn’t want to have to deal with the influx of refugees. Who knows?
If I’m reading Lissa right then we hold similar viewpoints. I believe it is fine and dandy to personally judge aspects of a culture or actions of a member of that culture which enjoy widespread support among their peers as good or bad according to our internal morality. What we should not do is delude ourselves that our personal judgements represents objective “right” or “wrong” positions. I can say I think/feel Bob is a morally bad person for watching pornography, but it would be folly to act as if this judgement represents anything more than my personal opinion. The understood implication of an individual saying “Bob is an asshole” is “I think/feel that Bob is an asshole” and it carrys no more weight than any other personal opinion. The same is true of individual assertions about the moral behavior of cultures or representatives of cultures.
To have an objectively “right” or “wrong” judgement of an action from a moral standpoint one must be the universal arbiter of morality(the person who defines the “world-wide standards” that Lissa correctly notes do not exist). I’ve never met such an individual.
Enjoy,
Steven
We are not debating what WOULD be done, but what SHOULD be done. I don’t believe the US would be under any obligation to stop my hypothetical slaughter in Mexico, but we certainly would not be wrong to stop it.
You have advocated a position in which we would be wrong to interfer. Are you going to stick to that position?
Can you codify what is right and what is wrong? Is watching pornography of consenting adults right or wrong? Is female circumcision wrong? Is male circumcision wrong?
I’m fine with an absolute right/wrong. All I want to know is where the lines are and what authority drew the lines. If it is some schlub that I saw eating his boogers the other day then I’m going to feel very little remorse at violating his ideas of right/wrong.
Enjoy,
Steven
You haven’t articulated any principle. What is it about criticism from a member of a different culture that is invalid? On what principle is it based, and why does it change depending on who is doing the criticism?
Nor have you addressed the other question, which is “what if it is part of my culture to be rude to other people’s sisters”?
So what? Nuking someone you don’t like and oppressing women are both cultural artifacts. On what basis do you draw a distinction between them, so that one can be criticized and the other cannot?
Then you have abandoned your principle that “a culture cannot be criticized”.
More contradiction. Why should we do anything, unless Third World shoe-makers are destabilizing the world in some way?
But we have no right to actually do something, according to you.
I repeat - on what basis do you criticize a factory run with child labor, which does equally apply to FGM or slavery?
Regards,
Shodan
No, I can’t. But I believe God did. See my first post in this thread.
I use the Bible and the authority would be God.
and I promise I did not eat my boogers 
The question/proposition is a bit ambiguous, as the answers that have been made so far show. Also, the definitions of “savage” and “civilized” are culturally biased, and consequently invalid.
However (and I apologise, I can’t find my compass scores), I’ll give the best answer I can under the circumstances.
Strongly Agree. Cultures are formed based on the availability of resources and the need to exploit them. Actions are the result of facing problems and finding the best solutions for them.
Peoples cannot be measured outside of their cultures; they are a product of those cultures. A person can be judged to be acting savagely or civilized, but first you have to strictly define the terms in a non-culturally-biased way.
So here we are, one group thinks that right & wrong are subjctive to culture, and another group think that right & wrong transcend culture.
If I’m right.
Ok, so what are god’s rules about female circumcision? Foot binding? Booger eating? Can we get him to write a few more chapters please? These things really should be covered.
Enjoy,
Steven
God?? Not exactly who I’d use to decide what behaviors are acceptable and what aren’t for humans, for several different reasons. Aside from the fact that God is purportedly an immortal being who would have no common frame of reference to mortal human beings (or any other mortal beings), his/her/its past actions in the bible don’t lead me to give his/her/its opinion a very high rating. After all, WE haven’t destroyed the entire earth down to the last pair of each species…not yet any way. Personally, if the bible is accurate, I rate God as a savage. 
-XT
Have you checked the lightning rod on your roof lately? Now might be a good time to do so.
Nothing is ever black or white, my friend. The answer to this would depend on many, many factors. When does it come down to a question of numbers? How many people would our intervention kill, verses how many would be killed by the genocide? Would our intervention stir up more hatred between the groups, leading to more violence down the road? What would a war do to the country’s infrastructure? Would more people die because of lack of clean water? Would it disrupt the farming season, leading to famine?
The fact is that we couldn’t stop it, no matter how hard we tried. If we intervened millitarily every time there was a genocide, we’d never be done fighting, and it still wouldn’t do any good.
The principle is this: You cannot judge other cultures because your morality is not superior to theirs. You may have a personal opinion on whether certain aspects of that culture are “right” or “wrong”, but your opinion is just that–opinion. There is no independant moral standard to which all cultures are subject.
But it’s not, is it? Your culture, is, in a sense, mine. And in our culture, it is socially inappropriate to be rude to other people’s sisters. However, if you had come from this fabled culture in which it is perfectly correct to be rude to other people’s sisters, I would politely ignore your behavior, because, in my culture, it is rude to point out the social faux pas of others.
In an extremely broad sense. How much further to you intend to stretch this? I thought we were talking about culture and whether it’s right or wrong to judge individual aspects, not international politics.
On the basis that one only affects the members of that particular culture, and the other has the potential to affect the entire world.
No, I haven’t. War and FGM cannot fairly be compared. They’re apples and oranges.
Well, so far we haven’t, and we’re unlikely to do so because of the overwhelming financial interest we have in cheap labor.
Nor is there anything we realisticaly could do.
What criticism are you referring to, pray tell? Stating the fact that the shoes are made by child labor and refering to the condition in which those children live does not contitute a criticism.
Frankly, you are just evaiding the question here, so I’ll let others continue this debate. Enjoy.
Well, if that’s the way you feel, I understand.
I feel constrained to note that anyone who would make a concrete judgement call on whether or not something is moral on such little information as contained in your scenario is of questionable wisdom.
Generally, I like to know quite a bit about the subject before I make up an opinion. I’ve never been good at those quick opinion poll questions, because I usually spoil it by interrogating the person who asked for details about the situation when an off-the-cuff “yes” or “no” is what is really desired. But it’s hard for me to make decisions about issues as weighty as ethics without knowing every detail possible.
I am proposing a language to debate in: English. If we agree we can move forward.
I am proposing a relevant epistemology: Logic.If we agree we can move forward.
I am proposing a morality here: that rape and murder are savage and should be minimised. If we agree on this we can move forward to extending it until we disagree.
Of course none of these things are universal. Cymwysterau newydd i fyfyrwyr fydd yn disodli arholiadau?
Lissa and Snakespirit appear to argue that judging and interfering with other cultures in order to minimise the practices we think are ‘savage’ is wrong. (And incidentally, there are plenty of realistic carrots and sticks available, usually via the World Bank: eg. “stop sacrificing children and you will receive aid and debt relief, continue and we will sell weapons to your belligerent neighbour.”)
If that judgmental interventionism is our culture, how can it be wrong?