Are All Cultures Equal?

[cwjerome]

There's been some discussions recently in other topics where people have asked (to paraphrase) what makes me so confident and arrogant? I am fairly confident based on reasoning, and I have no arrogance because this has nothing to do with me. I have been taken to task because I believe Western culture -with America at the helm- is superior to other, more primitive cultures.

First my interpretation of primitive. Primitive refers to societies which have not discovered or accept the following truths:

(A) The universe operates according to natural law rather than by supernatural powers
(B) by observing nature and applying reason, thru the scientific method, people can understand natural law and successfully apply that understanding to the task of living on earth
(C) by assuming self-responsibility, each individual can shape the course of his own life, rather than being controlled by the tribe
(D) by choosing to work hard, men can achieve an improving standard of living thru production, invention, technology, trade, and the accumulation and tranfer of knowledge and wealth from generation to generation
(E) governments that protect the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness establish spheres of freedom within which individuals can achieve their full potential.

The more a society accepts these, the less primitive I would consider it.

My main argument is the idea of "cultural relativism" is wrong; some cultures may be better than others. I do believe cultures (ie. principles, beliefs, concepts, ideas, traditions) can be objectively analyzed. I believe ideas have meanings, and not all ideas are morally equivelant [dictatorship vs democracy as an example]. I believe those societies that apply A-E mentioned above would be superior to those that refuse A-E or just haven't "discovered" them yet. I would call a society that conducts human sacrifices to fuel the sun's trek across the sky (as the Aztecs did), less advanced than a society that theorizes the earth is spinning. That is just one example, and a person would have to look at each society across the board, but I'm just trying to give concrete examples to a complex discussion in minimal time.

Well, that's my general position.

 

[illustri]

The ancient greeks theorized the world was round, devised theorems, pondered philosophies that have laid the base for our "superior western culture"

but iphigenia was still sacrificed for the spoils of troy

Today even in america, ferverous religious fundamentalism trumps all of you "accepted" truths.

 

[CycloWizard]

First, I don't know that your list of 'truths' are really 'truths' at all. I think they are more 'norms' that are accepted broadly by our society. Thus, the more you see a society applying them, the more you deem them 'less primitive.'

I think that the argument that one culture is 'better' than another is certainly debatable, and the side you choose largely depends on your entire outlook on life. Basically, in my opinion (I just thought this up now, so maybe it has merit and maybe not), society is gravitating towards or away from religious states or congregations. On the one hand, people in the US are claiming that we need to have less religious influence. (Ironically, it is usually these same people that argue that we have no right to dictate whether Iraq becomes a theocracy or democracy, at least in this forum. ) On the other, you have the natural tendency for those who share beliefs to congregate together in a society where their beliefs can be upheld across the board.

In the short term, I see the world moving towards less-religious state entities. In the long run, I see it moving back toward religious states. I think this will occur because currently, the idea of religious freedom is still new and it seems like it could be beneficial to everyone - people can live however they want, though each religion sees this as an opportunity to induce its will on others. However, once the religious realize how incompatible society has become with respect to the beliefs of these religions, the religions will break away and form their own societies.

I don't know that anything I said answers your question at all, but it seemed relevant at the time. I think the inherent flaw in your statements is that you make it appear that there can be no coexistence of science and religion in a society. As someone who is a religious scientist, I don't think this could be further from the truth. As science progresses, it will inevitably point to the obvious - that either deity/deities exist, or they don't. Currently, atheist philosophers are really struggling because of the scientific evidence pointing to a singular event as the creation of the universe. This event had to be set in motion, matter had to be created, and the creationism argument for a deity seems to be the only rational explanation. Anyway, /rant.

 

[cwjerome]

Yep, Greek culture was superior.

Religious fundamentalism in America isn't American culture, but even taken as a separate entity it would be more advanced that many others in this world.

We really can't compare cultures from different time periods, and, I'm not saying anyone is 100% solid A-E. It's a scale... some will be more, some less.

Cyclo: I don't think my "truths" eliminate religion. I believe in god.

 

[illustri]

ah... a scale
kinda relativistic no?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I question the very idea that one culture can be considered superior to another, as it will depend entirely on the perspective of the observer.

Take for example an isolated Amazon culture that we would consider "stone aged". To them, their culture provides all that they need, and have needed for perhaps millentia. Their laws may not be written in books, but they have as much meaning to them as ours do for us. As individuals, they may be even more well versed in their definitions of crimes and punishments than many of us are with our own. Is their understanding of the universe sufficient to survive and propagate? If so, what greater understanding do they need? Are their hunting, gathering, cooking, and shelter tools suitable to task? If so, what else do they need to invent? If they are happy and secure with who and what they are, what would apiring to greater things offer them?

If you want some examples of how springing production, invention, technology, trade on a primitive culture can be undesireable, look at many of the nations in Africa who have coped horribly with it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I question the very idea that one culture can be considered superior to another, as it will depend entirely on the perspective of the observer.

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. :thumbsup:

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

lol

As functional human beings, there are likely more things we agree on, we just haven't discussed them yet.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

lol

As functional human beings, there are likely more things we agree on, we just haven't discussed them yet.

Yeah, but it's not terribly fun to argue with people on an issue you agree on.

 

[illustri]

Religious fundamentalism in America isn't American culture
according to adherents.com some 44% of americans are born again fundamental -- now certainly not lunatic "scale" of primitivism but...

even taken as a separate entity it would be more advanced that many others in this world
why because it
A)believes the world is run by a magical diety who's will is law
B)deride and ignore scientific discovery because it doesnt agree with canon
C)live by a compiled ancient text, passing triumph or tragedy to the work of angels and devils
D)see A, B, C
E)seek to limit individual liberty and pursuit of happiness through government

 

[0roo0roo]

hitler is awesome.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: illustri
Religious fundamentalism in America isn't American culture
according to adherents.com some 44% of americans are born again fundamental -- now certainly not lunatic "scale" of primitivism but...

even taken as a separate entity it would be more advanced that many others in this world
why because it
A)believes the world is run by a magical diety who's will is law
B)deride and ignore scientific discovery because it doesnt agree with canon
C)live by a compiled ancient text, passing triumph or tragedy to the work of angels and devils
D)see A, B, C
E)seek to limit individual liberty and pursuit of happiness through government

I'm not terribly familiar with the intimacies of protestantism, but can you give me an example of a sect that derides science?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Are all cultures or societies equal? I would say no. But of course this probably varies upon the observer. I suppose one could make certain guidelines and go from there, but of course that would also differ with everyone.

The Anicent Aztecs, with their rampant human sacrifices, wouldn't rank very highly with me...as would the aforementioned Hitler and his culture at the time.

 

[cwjerome]

illustri: A scale relativistic? Not in any meaningful sense. Not in the philosophical sense that I'm using in regards to culture. Cultural relativists argue that we cannot attach value judgements to culture... there is no good or bad, better or worse, like Jack and Cyclo are doing. I believe you can.

I also believe your A-E scale is the exagerrations of someone with a hard political bias against Fundamentalists, so I'm not going to respond at this time. I just suggest you read our national documents, observe our society objectively, and look at our advancements in the last 200 years and ask yourself if those are the things representative of my A-E or your A-E?

Jack: Let's look at your Amazon example. I would say they are primitive. I would say that because I believe in an objective reality, that reality exists independent from the viewer. I would say that because we follow truths A-E much more closely (in other words we are operating in accordance to reality much more), we are more advanced. A-E means accepting and living by the facts of reality which means a better society. I would not call them immoral though, because morality involves choice. They simple have not progressed to that point yet. I would call radical Islamic extremists immoral... they openly defy it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
illustri: A scale relativistic? Not in any meaningful sense. Not in the philosophical sense that I'm using in regards to culture. Cultural relativists argue that we cannot attach value judgements to culture... there is no good or bad, better or worse, like Jack and Cyclo are doing. I believe you can.

Any guidelines you choose will be inherently arbitrary. I could define a good society as one that adheres to all my beliefs to a T. I believe the chief flaw with your viewpoint is that you're essentially equating technological magnificence with the goodness of society.

For example, take the Amish. If their living a simplistic lifestyle grants them greater happiness and peace of mind than you achieve with all the technology in the world, whose society is better? I would argue that the Amish's society is superior to our own if this were true.

 

[JacobJ]

superiority/inferiority
better/worse
equal/unequal
advanced/primitive
understanding/misunderstanding
order/disorder
fundamentalism/relativism


When you look at a the world from a "scientific" perspective, with the belief that their are "natural laws" that guide the operation of the universe it is necessary to intertwine the concept of relativism into the interpretation of the world you are creating. Laws require interaction between objects. If there are differentiable objects, then it follows that there are relationships that exist between those objects that depends on the relative circumstances through which those objects are interacting not only with eachother, but also with the whole myriad of objects that is our universe. How a toaster behaves depends on where it is located relative to other objects.

If two objects were in the same location at the same time and interacted with every object they were surrounded with identically(i.e. if they were "equal") then they would not be identifiable as seperate objects...they could only be percieved as one object. Therefore, equality in the strictest sense becomes irrelevant, because it is not percievable.

If equality cannot exist, then it follows that no two cultures are ever equal.

Does that mean one culture can be "better" than another?

The problem with arguing that something can be "better" is that the word "better" exists as an object and is therefore subject to the relativistic laws that guide the universe. The word "better" interacts with its surroundings vastly differently depending on its location. It is impossible to say if something is better or worse. In fact it is irrelevant. What can be argued, to some extent however, is that different cultures achieve different outputs, create different sets of relationships, and create different objects. By comparing the output created by two different cultures, it is possible to study the relationship between the objects created respectively, and then to identify the functional output of each culture(to some extent at least, our observational powers are limited and ultimately marred by our relative perspective.) So, is one culture better than another? Who knows? Do different cultures do different things? Yes.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, there are "Superior" Cultures that have existed, but that's a better question for Historians and History. The problem with determining "superiority" is that all who declare themselves as the "Superior" always seem to come to Tragedy. It is more important to become the Best you can be and not worry about whether you are "Superior".

 

[cwjerome]

Cyclo, it's not arbitrary. 1 sec...

Jacob, you're missing the point of relativist. It's not a matter of where one thing is in relation to another. It's not saying 10 degrees is cold but zero degrees is even colder. Relativist is an outlook, a worldview that says there's no good or bad, only SAME (or "equality").

So if I believe that one idea or belief is BETTER than another, we have to define what is "good"... morality. This is why it's not arbitrary, because it all depends on your moral foundation, which itself is predicated on a metaphysical premise.

To very simply define my morality, I would say that the "good" consists of that which sustains, promotes and furthers man's life. From that basic notion, I can argue how and why my A,B,C,D, and E "truths" are moral and therefore good- i.e. "better" than cultures that do not adhere to them (in other words, cultures that do NOT sustain, promote, and further human life as well).

As far as the Amish go, they could be fully happy, but I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness promotes human life and therefore the all people should have that freedom. If someone CHOOSES to be Amish, they are exercising those rights. If they are denied that or coerced, then it's wrong.

Sleepy time, talk more later

 

[jackschmittusa]

Henry David Thoreau

Life without Principle

[4] This world is a place of business. What an infinite bustle! I am awaked almost every night by the panting of the locomotive. It interrupts my dreams. There is no sabbath. It would be glorious to see mankind at leisure for once. It is nothing but work, work, work. I cannot easily buy a blank-book to write thoughts in; they are commonly ruled for dollars and cents. An Irishman, seeing me making a minute in the fields, took it for granted that I was calculating my wages. If a man was tossed out of a window when an infant, and so made a cripple for life, or seared out of his wits by the Indians, it is regretted chiefly because he was thus incapacitated for?business! I think that there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself, than this incessant business.

[12] Perhaps I am more than usually jealous with respect to my freedom. I feel that my connection with and obligation to society are still very slight and transient. Those slight labors which afford me a livelihood, and by which it is allowed that I am to some extent serviceable to my contemporaries, are as yet commonly a pleasure to me, and I am not often reminded that they are a necessity. So far I am successful. But I foresee that if my wants should be much increased, the labor required to supply them would become a drudgery. If I should sell both my forenoons and afternoons to society, as most appear to do, I am sure that for me there would be nothing left worth living for. I trust that I shall never thus sell my birthright for a mess of pottage. I wish to suggest that a man may be very industrious, and yet not spend his time well. There is no more fatal blunderer than he who consumes the greater part of his life getting his living. All great enterprises are self-supporting. The poet, for instance, must sustain his body by his poetry, as a steam planing-mill feeds its boilers with the shavings it makes. You must get your living by loving. But as it is said of the merchants that ninety-seven in a hundred fail, so the life of men generally, tried by this standard, is a failure, and bankruptcy may be surely prophesied.

Just another take on our "superior" society.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Cyclo, it's not arbitrary. 1 sec...

Jacob, you're missing the point of relativist. It's not a matter of where one thing is in relation to another. It's not saying 10 degrees is cold but zero degrees is even colder. Relativist is an outlook, a worldview that says there's no good or bad, only SAME (or "equality").

So if I believe that one idea or belief is BETTER than another, we have to define what is "good"... morality. This is why it's not arbitrary, because it all depends on your moral foundation, which itself is predicated on a metaphysical premise.

To very simply define my morality, I would say that the "good" consists of that which sustains, promotes and furthers man's life. From that basic notion, I can argue how and why my A,B,C,D, and E "truths" are moral and therefore good- i.e. "better" than cultures that do not adhere to them (in other words, cultures that do NOT sustain, promote, and further human life as well).

As far as the Amish go, they could be fully happy, but I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness promotes human life and therefore the all people should have that freedom. If someone CHOOSES to be Amish, they are exercising those rights. If they are denied that or coerced, then it's wrong.

Sleepy time, talk more later

Ah, now we get down to it. The point is, your morality is inherently arbitrary, and thus judgments based on it are arbitrary. Even if based soundly on logic, others may disagree with your morality, thus rendering any judgment you have irrelevant to their perspective. Thus, we're back to relativism.

I'm definitely not a relativist in general, and certainly not with respect to morality, but I don't think 'morality' as you would define it is certainly relative. The definition you supply, "I would say that the "good" consists of that which sustains, promotes and furthers man's life" is arbitrary. Thus, any statements that logically follow are automatically arbitrary. I would define morality much differently than yourself. From Merriam-Webster.com:

2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Applying this definition of morality to your position, I would arrive at different conclusions. You see, your particular definition of morality falls under what MW calls 'right human conduct.' What comprises this 'right human conduct' will depend on who you ask. I believe that moral relativism is fallacious and that certain things are right and wrong. However, I believe that the limits of morality are far from established in some areas, particularly with respect to technology.

I agree with your last two paragraphs particularly, and I wish I could carry out the last one. More Hopf Bifurcations are in my future before sleep tonight. :roll:

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Cyclo, it's not arbitrary. 1 sec...

Jacob, you're missing the point of relativist. It's not a matter of where one thing is in relation to another. It's not saying 10 degrees is cold but zero degrees is even colder. Relativist is an outlook, a worldview that says there's no good or bad, only SAME (or "equality").

So if I believe that one idea or belief is BETTER than another, we have to define what is "good"... morality. This is why it's not arbitrary, because it all depends on your moral foundation, which itself is predicated on a metaphysical premise.

To very simply define my morality, I would say that the "good" consists of that which sustains, promotes and furthers man's life. From that basic notion, I can argue how and why my A,B,C,D, and E "truths" are moral and therefore good- i.e. "better" than cultures that do not adhere to them (in other words, cultures that do NOT sustain, promote, and further human life as well).

As far as the Amish go, they could be fully happy, but I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness promotes human life and therefore the all people should have that freedom. If someone CHOOSES to be Amish, they are exercising those rights. If they are denied that or coerced, then it's wrong.

Sleepy time, talk more later

I don't really understand your explanation of why things aren't arbitrary...but I'll try to clarify what I meant by relativism(which I'm basing on my own internal logic):

objects that can be differentiated from eachother exist relative to eachother. They exist to us because we are able to see them as seperate from other things. However, we depend on percieving the difference between things in order to understand them. In order to understand what a foot is, it is important to be able to percieve the difference between a foot and an ankle, or even a foot and the floor. We percieve things by how they are different then their surroundings. That is one of the most basic relativisms(difference.)

Now, you percieve words. "Good" is a word. There are other words connected to it that serve to form your understanding of that word. The meaning of the word good depends on how it is connected to the other words/ideas/thoughts/whatever that serve to define it. You defined "good" by connecting it to words such as "sustains, promotes, furthers." While it may or may not be arbitrary which words you connected it to, it is clear that different people have different connections that create definitions. How can one word be the "same" to two different people when it is located within a different constellation of connections for each of those people? The only way I can see it being called the same is if you decide that the connections hold no meaning, in which case you get stuck with a rather unsatisfying arbitrariness to things.

Is happiness a sign of superiority? Is freedom of choice a sign of superiority? The answers to those questions depends on where you place "happiness" relative to other ideas. Obviously, most people in our culture and indeed most cultures connect happiness with words such as "good." But are there not cultures do not condone happiness? Is it possible, that to some people happiness could be connected to "negativity" or maybe even "death"? Of course. Things are not fixed. They can change. They are defined by how they are connected.

However, in order to function in the world it is necessary for us to find stability...to believe that certain groups of connections are in fact stable and maybe even permanent and immovable. I believe that writing this post will improve my happiness, therefore I am writing this post. I believe that happiness is good for me. I believe that good things are worth pursuing. It doesn't matter if I am wrong. If I did not have those beliefs, I would not be able to function. In a sense, we create artificial stability in order to catapult us into justifications for our actions. Fundamentalism in a way is based on more strictly defined sets of artificial stability -- which is why fundamentalists do extreme things such as go to war(the more stability they percieve they have, the more they can use that stability to support their actions.)

Is there any point of stability that exists, where connections between objects are permanent? If God exists, then probably yes. -- And in that case, we can use that connection as the fundamental justification for our lives and the things we do in them.

 

[GrGr]

Two of the main ideas behind the Bush doctrine are American Supremacy and American Exceptionalism.

 

[Moonbeam]

The prisons are full of innocent people whose crimes were actually moral and completely self -justified. You only have to ask them.

Where there is right and wrong there is reward and punishment, self congratulation and guilt. Every child goes through the process of being made to feel bad. Because a child has no sophisticated defense mechanism to defend itself against this onslaught, it feels guilt and pain to the human limit of pain. The mind cannot sustain this pain consciously and breaks and the unified self divides in to many.

These many egos are perceived as a single I, an I that is not the original self. It is the I of sophisticated defense, the liar, the dissembler, the hypocrite, the cunning planner and deceiver. It is the I that is out for itself. This I is a mask, a fake, a pretender that identifies with the good to deny the horrible pain of feeling bad. This I will kill rather than remember. This I is always identified with whatever is best. It will belong to all the best clubs, the best country the best team the best of everything, and of course it will always be morally superior and a member of the best culture.

So nobody knows anything about real morality who has not died to his self. The beautiful thing about western culture is that one can devote so much time to the grooming and manicure of the ego and go so far down that road that it becomes possible to see that it's a path that is totally empty. In the West we experience alienation because our culture lacks soul. The soul seeks love and all the love that we seek is had in giving it. Because competition is hate, we have ruined our lives. Life is only meaningful when we share it with others. We were meant to care for each other. It is our human nature.

Morality then, in my opinion, is being real, dying to what is false and recapturing what we were really meant to be. Every human is perfect because every human is perfectly human. It is the original true self that is moral and the actions of such beings are what constitute moral culture.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
illustri: A scale relativistic? Not in any meaningful sense. Not in the philosophical sense that I'm using in regards to culture. Cultural relativists argue that we cannot attach value judgements to culture... there is no good or bad, better or worse, like Jack and Cyclo are doing. I believe you can.

I also believe your A-E scale is the exagerrations of someone with a hard political bias against Fundamentalists, so I'm not going to respond at this time. I just suggest you read our national documents, observe our society objectively, and look at our advancements in the last 200 years and ask yourself if those are the things representative of my A-E or your A-E?

Let me understand by your own words, a society that's 75% of your A-E scale is better than a 50%, right? But what if you might weigh B higher than D, or deem C low priority. Even if another culture uses your scale to judge its own, the immediate relativism is apparant. How do you define, based on unwavering principles which btw absolutivism absolutely requires, what is the measure of better?

None of this is to say relativism makes your own moral opinions or belief systems defunct. You're entitled to judge yourself and others as you see fit. Good, better, worse is up to you in your house, and up to them in theirs.

btw my A-E is just exposition of yours, giving reason why your culture is so primitive

 

[Sunner]

To avoid typing a really long post, I'll just say, the more a society encourages free thinking, the better I think it is.
Which of course means there aren't a whole lot of good societies around, but hey...

And yes, the above is one HUGE generalization, but explaining it in any great detail would mean writing a small novel, and I'm too lazy for that