Personally im not convinced by philosophic relativism.
I have yet to hear a good argument FOR relativism, in where you cant say that one thing is “better” than the other. To me its seem like a weak and sometime cowardly proposition. What are the sound arguments for relativism?
Once you adopt it, you’ll find that no philosophy is better.
Ultimately there is no rational basis for reletavism. It cannot be maintained, because there is no innate morality to cultures. Either thre is a real morality or there is not. if not, reletavism is outright wrong, because it doesn’t matter if you’re a racist baby-raping cannibal who hooks people on crack and hates puppies while peeing in the cornflakes of everyone’s cereal, or if you spend your life laboring to do nothing but kindness: it would all be the same, whether you amuse yourself by smashing up the universe for fun or making a paradise for all. But if it is possible to be good there is a real good to be had and live up to.
If so, either culture is in accordance with real morality to some degree, or it is not. There are no other options. Moreover, cultural reletavism is intrinsically stupid. it assumes that the magic world 'culture" makes things right. But it pretends not to note that culture is what people make and do any time there’s two of them. And the whims of two people have no more force than the whims of one.
I don’t see anything wrong with relativism as long as both people are consenting adults.
So how would a cultural relativist go about defending for example how Taliban treat women?
It sounds very academic to me, almost self-loathing at times.
It’s learned behavior. It’s systemic.
It’s probably true to some extent that it is relative to culture what is and what isn’t acceptable, but there are at least some innate factors that should be considered when dealing with things in a humane way.
The golden rule, is not such a bad rule really. Though even that probably changes relative to a culture.
There are still things that we fear. There are still things that cause us both physical and emotional pain. To some extent these things should be avoided when dealing with another person (and for some - any living creature should be treated with such respect).
Yet, even with our ability to empathize with others our cultures still have their shortcomings. All of these cultural nuances probably stem from our Id, the ancient animal-like part of our brain that makes us territorial, violent, fearful, and lustful. Basic survival instincts. Women were submissive to the dominant males who offered them protection. We feared other groups of humans, darkness, and predators and fought to protect our land (if at that time we were Nomadic - our possessions, women, and camp). Lust is what kept our species alive, and it probably often boiled down to rape (a recent study shows that rape is more likely to cause pregnancy). That’s not to say that even at that time consensual sex was rare - I’m sure it happened just as often.
I feel many cultures (maybe all of them) mimic our early beginnings as hunter gatherers. In many ways you could say that we’ve only amplified them.
What was once tribal skirmishes are now all out wars. What was once an incident of rape which was seen to be normal is now much more traumatic because of social implications. Women (and men) are now forced to wear clothing, makeup, and perform hygienic routine to attract mates (instead of just letting it all hang out). Religion and Nationalism reinforce our fears, desire for violence, and territorialism (and it is still very scary to be in complete darkness).
I’ve gotten way off-topic.
Basically, I feel that some cultures have exaggerated our basic instincts, and these continue to be perpetuated through learned behavior. And the people of these cultures probably accept it just fine. We might not understand or accept it ourselves, but the reverse is also probably true. They can’t accept or understand our culture. So to some extent, yes it is relative. But at the same time everyone deserves common respect as a human beings (unfortunately no culture has that covered).
Raise kids without any of these ideas and we’d probably be better off.
No nationalism. No religion. No cultural differences.
Of course there are some things we can’t make uniform (appearance, sex, race, personality, etc), but you can’t take every challenge away from being human.
You would then have failed to give them anything of value. They would not magically become good. Instead, they will simply get bad ideas. Truly, you live up to your name, nilum.
Nilum:
So in this world of yours, would you prohibit anything. Or is everything just as OK as the next thing. Im shying away from using the world “morals” since its often been hijacked by the religious. Instead im wondering about standards (regardless where you get them from , everybody has them). This seem awful laissez-faire and also spine-less. Why would you not propagate your own values when meeting opposition?
There’s a line by Emo Phillips that goes something like "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.” The problem with saying, to take your example, “The way the Taliban treats women is wrong”, is we’re not objective judges ourselves. We have our own set of beliefs and moral codes that we believe are right. So when we look at the way the Taliban treats women…the way it treats people in general, we compare it to the way that we think people should be treated. That’s inevitable, but it also means that we’re bringing in our own subjective beliefs to the question.
I never implied that anyone would magically become good. I don’t believe there is such a thing.
Like everything else though, differences serves as a barrier to find a common ground.
I am just listing off the ones we could easily do away with.
As far as imposing my own beliefs - I would never do that, but I would suggest learning to be empathetic. It’s disturbing how detached people are from one another.
Critical thinking and empathy is the only thing humans really need to make ‘moral’ decisions. Of course there are those that lack this ability (sociopaths), but nothing is perfect.
I’m glad you think I live up to my name. Humans are nihilistic by nature. There is no right or wrong, but if we were to work towards an ideal goal, I would suggest being empathetic towards others, without judgement and an understanding that humans that commit crimes are at least to some extent not in total control (no one is).
Easily, if by “easily” you mean, “everything humanity has ever created which is good”. You are not talking about destroying some minor appendage on humanity, but humanity itself.
If there is no right or wrong, then people cannot commit crimes. If there is nothing right nor wrong, then people are not wrong to commit any crime, nor is there anything wrong with punishing for them. Or just killing people for kicks. You have just destroyed the very foundation of your argument.
You look at everything too simply.
When I say there is no right or wrong, I am saying that these are all just constructs. Crime is also a construct.
I’m not saying that society doesn’t have rules, but I am saying that humanity has no divine code of conduct.
We created rules as a way of deterring acts of violence, murder, rape, and other things socially unacceptable. These rules were created by leaders and wisemen (but rarely women). These rules have been perpetuated, refined, expanded, and in some cases decremented.
“If there is nothing right nor wrong, then people are not wrong to commit any crime, nor is there anything wrong with punishing for them. Or just killing people for kicks. You have just destroyed the very foundation of your argument”
I haven’t. I never said it was right or wrong for someone to kill someone else. Your belief and my belief that that particular action is ‘wrong’ may be for different reasons, but I would agree with you. I do not find murder acceptable. Just because I might not believe in some divine law, doesn’t mean I can’t object to certain human behavior and want to correct it.
If you believe that God set these laws, then that’s a different issue. I believe murder has become socially unacceptable because others can empathize with those who have had a friend or relative murdered. It’s not a good feeling - it doesn’t help humanity when we cannibalize each other. I had a cousin whom I was very close to savagely beaten to death by her boyfriend. And though I thought about taking a baseball bat to his face several times, I am unfortunately restrained by my own beliefs. Revenge is a futile effort that only brings about more pain and suffering. As hard as it is to believe, the person who murdered my cousin also has people who love him.
Some people need laws to restrict these emotions. Sometimes laws aren’t enough. I personally don’t need a law to tell me murder is wrong. I can use empathy and critical thinking to come to the same conclusion on my own. I don’t need a deterrent like some people. But that’s more of an anarchist’s philosophy. I don’t mind laws. I just don’t need them.
Nilum:
This is purely from curiosity:
IN Country X :The women in this country are being beaten everyday at breakfast with a whip.
No women complains and when asked, just states that this is part of her upbringing/religion.
How would a relativist react to this, would you have any incentive to reat?
Please read my first post in this thread:
“It’s probably true to some extent that it is relative to culture what is and what isn’t acceptable, but there are at least some innate factors that should be considered when dealing with things in a humane way.”
I’m saying that there are definitely going to be differences, but I don’t have to accept all of them, and some of them might be inhumane - which is automatically socially unacceptable. But those are just my opinions. I can’t force an entire people to change unless they want to.
These women probably do want a way out. If only there were some way to convince their religious leaders that it would be okay to divorce their husbands and move somewhere more progressive. That’s never going to happen, but we can lead by example. Many people who migrate here from the middle east become integrated and adopt our more progressive views (not all - but many).
In Mexico if you rape a girl she has to marry you - so rape to some extent is acceptable down there. I know many Mexicans who would never think of raping anyone. Integration is key.
As a relativist(which I’m not really) - if I saw a woman getting beat I would probably think it’s best to mind my own business. What the hell could I do anyway. I’m one man against an entire community, and it is probably common for them even if it is grossly traumatic for the woman being beaten.
I’m not sure what action you would like me to take. Stand up to them Jesus-style and give them the whole: “those without sin cast the first stone” routine(just another example of how implausible the Bible is).
Bolding Mine.
The irony, it burns. Do you actually think about what you are writing?
First off, I have not stated my moral beliefs, which you seem to be making up for me on your whim. I never said murder was wrong, or right. I did say that if there is no morality, then it is neither wrong nor right. You can do whatever you like, and so can I , and there is no moral argument for doing or not doing anything.
Then, of course, after completely demonstrating the total inadequacy of your thinking, you feel compelled to brag about you are superior to human law.
You’re missing the point entirely.
But continue to think however you like.
And just to add one more thing.
To me, right and wrong are just moral precedents. They are all words which I may use from time to time to signify my own opinions.
That being said, none of my beliefs are based on any type of morality. It’s about sharing a common goal with the rest of humanity, self-preservation and improvement.
And though morality might also share that same function to a lesser extent, morality can be twisted by whoever is in charge. Someone’s morality might make them hate homosexuals for instance. Or beat women in another.
I don’t believe anything is fundamentally right or wrong. There is a reason people are gay or straight. There is a reason people commit crime.
I don’t have to find murder acceptable, but I can at least understand that it’s not wrong. It’s a common human behavior. The goal is to correct the behavior not condemn the human. Even our currents laws, your right and wrong, don’t prevent murder and other crimes from happening. While it may prevent some, there obviously needs to be a better solution.
Thank you for your, if nothing else, very brave answer. Please explain to an ignorant person like myself how this is a valid statement.
This is how I follow your logic:
Please correct me if Im wrong and made it too simple. But my first instinct was that it seem a bit isolationistic and also living without principals at all, i.e no regards for fellow man/self loathing of own values.
[quote=“nilum, post:17, topic:543727”]
That being said, none of my beliefs are based on any type of morality. It’s about sharing a common goal with the rest of humanity, self-preservation and improvement.
Bullshit. Who claims that humanity has any kind of common goals at all, much less those?
There. Right there. You claim not to believe in right and wrong, but what immediuately comes out of your mouth? That you want to “correct” behavior. You can’t correct something that’s not wrong to begin with. You talk about “better” soluitions, which intrinsically postulates an objective standard of value you just denied.
Relativism is often used as an excuse for bad behavior. The relativist says it’s only bad according to someone else’s philosophy, but not his, so there’s nothing wrong with it. Prisons are full of relativists. But reasonable people can use relativism as a way to distinquish between rational and irrational norms. It also distinquished between political philosophies like democracy and totalitarianism. Philosophies don’t have to be taken to extremes and applied in all circumstances. Everybody tends to be a relativist or absolutist when it suits them. Except me. I believe everybody should have their own absolutist philosophy.