Are All Cultures Equal?

[judasmachine]

No, some cultures are worse as they conquer, destroy, and erase entire other cultures. These are like viruses, that believe they have some form of moral supremecy which is usually just a military advantage or economic advantage. They in no way are any better than the cultures they destroy, and often times much worse in the form of oppression, or corruption than the ones they destroy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There's been some discussions recently in other topics where people have asked (to paraphrase) what makes me so confident and arrogant?

Well just look like in here.

The Neocon culture in here insists it is better.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
No, some cultures are worse as they conquer, destroy, and erase entire other cultures. These are like viruses, that believe they have some form of moral supremecy which is usually just a military advantage or economic advantage. They in no way are any better than the cultures they destroy, and often times much worse in the form of oppression, or corruption than the ones they destroy.

How many siginificant cultures haven't done any of that at one point in time or the other?

 

[cwjerome]

Cyclo, it's not purely arbitrary, because it's based on the facts of reality not whim or personal discretion. It is not unreasonable or unsupported. It's is rooted in the philosophical belief that existence exists and reality is absolute. So there's an objective reality independent from personal "perspective". The second part is morality, or determining what is the "good". If you belief the good is that which supports, promotes, and furthers human life, then the goal is to undertsand tha facts of reality to achieve this task. There is much reasoning and evidence to support A-E as being that which corresponds to reality and will enhance human life.

Jacob I think I understand what you are saying... I might be wrong. But thinking about the differences and connections of objects and words as being "relativism" just doesn't apply to the way the term "cultural relativism" is normally used. Arranging things around us to be stable is a nice idea, but I'm talking about how we make the distinctions between what is good (stable) or bad, and what ideas promote goodness (stability).

Moonbeam, I'm still sifting through your post.

illustri: It's not relativistic -or arbitrary- because we can use reason and logic to make conclusions based on an objective reality. If you believe in a SUBJECTIVE reality then yes, everything is arbitrary and relativistic. Everything, including morality, is then determined by individual perspective.

Sunner basically agrees, judas agrees that a culture can be better (or worse) than another, and I'm willing to bet most do... they either don't realize it or lack the courage to say so. As I said in another topic, it seems obvious that some ideals, beliefs, and concepts are BETTER than others. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Human rights are better than oppression. Republican form of gov't is better than authoritarianism. A free press is better than state controlled media. Pluralism and tolerance is better than racism and intolerance. Open education is better than forced state indoctrination. Freedom is better than slavery. Equality is better than discrimination. Free markets are better than a command economy. The list goes on and on.

Some ideas are better at bringing dignity, choice, safety, health, happiness, and progress to life. Through thousands of years of torturous advancement, some areas of the world have in fact identified and accept some of these better ideas and are much higher on the A-E scale. If people didn't believe that some ideas are better than others they wouldn't argue or debate, but obviously they make value-judgements and consider right/wrong and good/bad. Can anyone honestly say that American society wasn't better than German Nazism in 1940? Or that Japanese society is worse than the Taliban today?

If you cannot one is better than another than I would consider that extremely immoral. Having a world where all beliefs are equal, all concepts, principles, etc. are equal would be infinately dangerous, brutal, and ugly. That's just common sense. It's life or death... no one who cares about human life can afford to engage in the incredible pretense of cultural relativism.

Let's answer some questions. Which would you rather do:
1) telephone pizza from an air conditioned apartment OR
gnaw on vermin-ridden meat in a sweltering shack?
2) have laser surgery OR a shaman's spells?
3) do a frenzied dance ritual to make crops grow OR
put some fertilizer on them
4) learn about science, math, and language arts and the world OR memorize the Koran?
5) live under the rule of law OR the rule of a tyrant?

It's not any "cultural conditioning" that makes us all answer those questions the same way. It's the facts of reality that we have learned that point us in the direction of better lives for human beings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Cyclo, it's not purely arbitrary, because it's based on the facts of reality not whim or personal discretion. It is not unreasonable or unsupported. It's is rooted in the philosophical belief that existence exists and reality is absolute. So there's an objective reality independent from personal "perspective". The second part is morality, or determining what is the "good". If you belief the good is that which supports, promotes, and furthers human life, then the goal is to undertsand tha facts of reality to achieve this task. There is much reasoning and evidence to support A-E as being that which corresponds to reality and will enhance human life.

Jacob I think I understand what you are saying... I might be wrong. But thinking about the differences and connections of objects and words as being "relativism" just doesn't apply to the way the term "cultural relativism" is normally used. Arranging things around us to be stable is a nice idea, but I'm talking about how we make the distinctions between what is good (stable) or bad, and what ideas promote goodness (stability).

Moonbeam, I'm still sifting through your post.

illustri: It's not relativistic -or arbitrary- because we can use reason and logic to make conclusions based on an objective reality. If you believe in a SUBJECTIVE reality then yes, everything is arbitrary and relativistic. Everything, including morality, is then determined by individual perspective.

Sunner basically agrees, judas agrees that a culture can be better (or worse) than another, and I'm willing to bet most do... they either don't realize it or lack the courage to say so. As I said in another topic, it seems obvious that some ideals, beliefs, and concepts are BETTER than others. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Human rights are better than oppression. Republican form of gov't is better than authoritarianism. A free press is better than state controlled media. Pluralism and tolerance is better than racism and intolerance. Open education is better than forced state indoctrination. Freedom is better than slavery. Equality is better than discrimination. Free markets are better than a command economy. The list goes on and on.

Some ideas are better at bringing dignity, choice, safety, health, happiness, and progress to life. Through thousands of years of torturous advancement, some areas of the world have in fact identified and accept some of these better ideas and are much higher on the A-E scale. If people didn't believe that some ideas are better than others they wouldn't argue or debate, but obviously they make value-judgements and consider right/wrong and good/bad. Can anyone honestly say that American society wasn't better than German Nazism in 1940? Or that Japanese society is worse than the Taliban today?

If you cannot one is better than another than I would consider that extremely immoral. Having a world where all beliefs are equal, all concepts, principles, etc. are equal would be infinately dangerous, brutal, and ugly. That's just common sense. It's life or death... no one who cares about human life can afford to engage in the incredible pretense of cultural relativism.

Let's answer some questions. Which would you rather do:
1) telephone pizza from an air conditioned apartment OR
gnaw on vermin-ridden meat in a sweltering shack?
2) have laser surgery OR a shaman's spells?
3) do a frenzied dance ritual to make crops grow OR
put some fertilizer on them
4) learn about science, math, and language arts and the world OR memorize the Koran?
5) live under the rule of law OR the rule of a tyrant?

It's not any "cultural conditioning" that makes us all answer those questions the same way. It's the facts of reality that we have learned that point us in the direction of better lives for human beings.

All you really ever say is that you are right because it's obvious, that good is better than bad. It's just a big circle. If there is good and bad we prefer good. If good gets us kicked in the head and bad gets us sex then what is good is bad. You are a relativist at heart because you decide what's right. It all begins and ends in you. You determing objective according to your objective. It's all about unexamined assumptions.

 

[GrGr]

I think the term Cultural Supremacism, in this case American Supremacism, defines cwjeromes stance pretty well. How is that logic different from being a White or Black Supremacist for example? Can you use this kind of logic on societies and cultures but not on race?

* supreme: 2 highest in degree or quality

* society: 3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

* culture 5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group

 

[Sultan]

Jewish society is the best.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: GrGr
I think the term Cultural Supremacism, in this case American Supremacism, defines cwjeromes stance pretty well. How is that logic different from being a White or Black Supremacist for example? Can you use this kind of logic on societies but not on race?

* supreme: 2 highest in degree or quality

* society: 3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

its "obviously" different, uh...

cwjeromes believes that those dogged islamics' culture is primitive and immoral because of their lack of democracy, technological sophistication, and deep faith

i'm absolutely certain they feel the ver reverse about cwjerome and the west for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS

 

[Vic]

Being the only true test, any culture that has not survived the test of time is obviously inferior to any that have.

 

[cwjerome]

I do not think you are understanding me moonbeam. I am not saying I am right because it's obvious, I'm saying I BELIEVE I'm right based on logical reasoning from derived from a valid philosophical foundation. I am not deciding what's right, I -and others- am trying to discuss and debate the best ways to live life on earth. I have no pre-ordained objective, I go where best possible evidence leads. ALL my assumptions have been examined.

There are a few people who people there is no good, and morality is irrelevant: they are Nihilists. There are people who think morality is unconcerned with who benefits and who loses. Some things are good -by definition- in and of itself: they believe in INSTRINSIC value. Then the there's SUBJECTIVISTS which I think is the modern downward trend, and judging from your comments moonbeam, I would consider you here. Subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, intuitions, or whims... and that it's merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment". Where intrinsic holds that the "good" resides in some sort of reality independent of man's consciousness, the subjectivist holds that the "good" resides in man;s consciousness independent from reality.

So if I had to comment on your words moonbeam, I would say that you believe every desire or whim is an irreducible moral primary, that any person is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity (cultural relativism), and that the only way people can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine. It's a moral blank check.

In my line of thinking, ideas, beliefs, and principles are not morally neutral or equally valid. I believe there are universal, cross-cultural truths (objective reality) and I care about people, and certain concepts, ideas, principles and values help and promote and sustain human life, and some concepts, ideas, principles and values hurt and destroy human life. It's up to people to analyze and debate these concepts, etc.. and decide that which is best. That is why we must judge, and always tale that responsibility to decide the best courses to help man.

 

[piasabird]

Man does not even know what exactly causes gravity. There is no law to explain how gravity works other than an apple falls off a tree, Maximum Escape Velocity, etc.

The big bang theory is a hoax with no shred of truth. i.e. universe is still expanding. It is still somewhat unclear how galaxy's are formed or why they all seem to be moving all in different directions.

How do you know God was not the best scientist that ever lived???

There are way too many unexplained phenomenum.

The premise that some scientist pose is that by being ably to understand and predict what will happen in nature they make themselves their own God.

 

[cwjerome]

GrGr, what you are saying is dumb and racist. First let me clarify I'm not talking only about American society... my main argument relates more to Western Civilization, although I observe that America has replaced Europe at the cutting edge of Western values. Nationalism has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it. I am talking about ideas, beliefs, principles, and concepts. Some are better than others. I don't like the term Eurocentric because it implies a racial basis for emphasizing the achievements of Western Civ. Reason knows no race. In fact, to appreciate the value of WC is not to claim every "good" development originated in the West, but WC (by and large) recognizes any merit in all cultures and adopts that which truly serves human needs.

You can claim whatever you want, and you can say that racial supremism is good, but it does not follow the same logic and reasoning as what I'm saying at all. Re-read my posts and look at what I say about 1) existence (reality) 2) morality and 3) my A-E "truths". If you have the mental capacity to understand, you will see that what I believe could never result in racial supremacy. I think what you are trying to say is that by arguing that one idea is better than another, then someone could argue that racism is better than pluralism. You are right, they could argue that... but their argument would be weak and disproven. In an ironic twist, it's YOU who thinks racism is the same as pluralism because you can not make the moral distinctions that I can.

What GrGr believes is somewhat popular, but it's moral cowardice to the max. I agree, thinking some ideas are superior CAN be dangerous, but just because there's a possibility for danger doesn't mean we run from reality and hide from the truth. I'm optimistic. I have faith in people. The possibility for danger is outweighed by the good consequences of what I believe. History has proven that. Through the tough (dangerous) times mankind has emerged more healthy, more educated, more free and has more leisure. Sticking our head in the sand won't solve anything. Pretending all ideas are the same won't help... it would only encourage evil. Just because some people may irrationally advocate destruction ideas doesn't mean we abandon progress. It means we continue rational debate on what is the "good" and what will support, promote, and further human life.

illustri, you also have no idea what I've said... and I think I laid it out pretty good. The fact that you say radical Islamic extremist culture can believe the reverse about the West for EXACTLY the same reasons shows me you don't understand my point. That culture does not believe in an objective reality/morality, and therefore cannot accept my A-E "truths". I am not going to repeat myself over and over... take a philosophy class.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Cyclo, it's not purely arbitrary, because it's based on the facts of reality not whim or personal discretion. It is not unreasonable or unsupported. It's is rooted in the philosophical belief that existence exists and reality is absolute. So there's an objective reality independent from personal "perspective". The second part is morality, or determining what is the "good". If you belief the good is that which supports, promotes, and furthers human life, then the goal is to undertsand tha facts of reality to achieve this task. There is much reasoning and evidence to support A-E as being that which corresponds to reality and will enhance human life.

Bolded part is the point I was making. Your whole premise is based on *what you believe* the good to be. This will inevitably vary from person to person. Now, if you're asking whether or not there really is an objective good that supercedes personal belief, that's a philosophical question that has many answers. I would say yes, but others may disagree. I can't necessarily tell you why you should believe one way or the other, nor can I necessarily tell you why I believe as I do, as it's a matter of faith, personal experiences, and personal reasoning. These things combine to form my perception of 'good'. Since every person has their own experiences and beliefs, it is inevitable that they will form a different, even if similar, definition. Who is right? Who can make this declaration? Not me.

illustri: It's not relativistic -or arbitrary- because we can use reason and logic to make conclusions based on an objective reality. If you believe in a SUBJECTIVE reality then yes, everything is arbitrary and relativistic. Everything, including morality, is then determined by individual perspective.

This is a very good statement. I do believe in an objective reality. However, the manner in which people view this reality is heavily subjective, as I mentioned above. This leads to a variety of interpretations of morality, some of which must be incorrect if one assumes that morality is objective (which I believe it must be).

As for the rest of your post, I'll demonstrate my thoughts by picking one sentence: "A free press is better than state controlled media."

If you are a member of the state controlling the media, then you will inevitably think that a state-controlled media is better. If, on the other hand, you're a member of the general citizenry, you'll inevitably think that free media is better. Both may have honest intentions and think they're right.

I guess I'm not arguing that some things are 'better', but that no one person can necessarily decide what is good for everyone. In effect, if this were possible, then a dictatorship would be the best form of government, as you could have one learned man tell everyone else what to think and do. You yourself said this is not desirable - that a democratic/republic is preferrable, which means you consider this subjectivity to be necessary to account for in designing a 'good society.'

As for your questions, take a look at the math and science I'm learning and you might have a different answer for #4. :roll:

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
illustri, you also have no idea what I've said... and I think I laid it out pretty good. The fact that you say radical Islamic extremist culture can believe the reverse about the West for EXACTLY the same reasons shows me you don't understand my point. That culture does not believe in an objective reality/morality, and therefore cannot accept my A-E "truths". I am not going to repeat myself over and over... take a philosophy class.

You are repeating yourself over and over I'm afraid, your truths are truths because they're true and dagnammit its true. This makes my previous point even more apt since thats exactly how those evil primitives justify their offense against you. So keep believing yourself better than them for whatever reasons you can struggle to come up with, they'll do the same about you.

So relax, don't strain yourself just because your "truths" and "points" are unfounded and biased.

 

[cwjerome]

illustri, you are either reading impaired or ideologically stuck. You cannot see my points because YOU think my truths (which aren't really mine) are truth BECAUSE I SAY THEY ARE TRUTH. Well, they're not truths because I say they are. Once again, if you cannot understand what I've said so far then there's no point in repeating or responding. Go back and re-read, and try another post.

Cyclo, heh... I hate math

Your bolded "If you believe" is important because what your morality is determines almost everything else, although I don't think many people have really thought-out their morality and exactly how it influences their positions. People with different moralities will believe different things, but this does not make all moralities equal. We have to look at the rational, logical, and philosophical reasoning, evidence and premises. I can defend my morality (the "good" is that which supports, promotes, and furthers human life) because there is much support. Some arguments may be weaker than others, but all we can do is use best possible evidence to understand and compare the thinking to the facts of reality.

I'll ask you a question: Which makes more sense... which one do you think could be supported with better logic, reasoning, evidence, and facts? My morality, or a morality that says the "good" is dancing, and that which increases the different types of dance and the skill involved in the act of dancing is how we determine what is good in this world. You get my point? You ask "who is right?" and it's a great question that we must always be asking ourselves and debating. The bottom line is, if there's an objective reality then we must always be objective and strive towards "truth". We must learn absolutes and apply them to living.

The 'free press' is an example of the same thing. You can have different people with different perspectives, but some perspectives will be based more in reality, on fact, and better argued. Everyone may be perfectly honest, but honesty does not determine reality. A dictatorship violates several of my A-E "truths" and would therefore work against the morality of supporting, promoting, and furthering human life. I could explain how, but I think that's evident. It's not about one man having the truth, it's about having a free and open society, a marketplace of ideas that allows what is happening now: discussions on reality, morality, and which direction we should go. One person claiming to have all knowledge and enslaving everyone else does not work under my morality... and the whole goal of the truths is to reach and practice my morality. In other words, we can't have a "truth" like dictatorship when dictatorship itself is an affront to the morality being strived for.

 

[illustri]

And yet here you are responding with the same tired rhetoric of your argument without exposition -- your suggestion that I reread is alarming stupid since you have wrote the same thing in every post.

Now you go so far as to say they aren't even your truths, if your system of objectivism is to blindly believe whatever teacher told you in phil 101, and furthermore use it to argue the inferiority of a neighbor... I can't help you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
illustri, you are either reading impaired or ideologically stuck. You cannot see my points because YOU think my truths (which aren't really mine) are truth BECAUSE I SAY THEY ARE TRUTH. Well, they're not truths because I say they are. Once again, if you cannot understand what I've said so far then there's no point in repeating or responding. Go back and re-read, and try another post.

Cyclo, heh... I hate math

Your bolded "If you believe" is important because what your morality is determines almost everything else, although I don't think many people have really thought-out their morality and exactly how it influences their positions. People with different moralities will believe different things, but this does not make all moralities equal. We have to look at the rational, logical, and philosophical reasoning, evidence and premises. I can defend my morality (the "good" is that which supports, promotes, and furthers human life) because there is much support. Some arguments may be weaker than others, but all we can do is use best possible evidence to understand and compare the thinking to the facts of reality.

I'll ask you a question: Which makes more sense... which one do you think could be supported with better logic, reasoning, evidence, and facts? My morality, or a morality that says the "good" is dancing, and that which increases the different types of dance and the skill involved in the act of dancing is how we determine what is good in this world. You get my point? You ask "who is right?" and it's a great question that we must always be asking ourselves and debating. The bottom line is, if there's an objective reality then we must always be objective and strive towards "truth". We must learn absolutes and apply them to living.

The 'free press' is an example of the same thing. You can have different people with different perspectives, but some perspectives will be based more in reality, on fact, and better argued. Everyone may be perfectly honest, but honesty does not determine reality. A dictatorship violates several of my A-E "truths" and would therefore work against the morality of supporting, promoting, and furthering human life. I could explain how, but I think that's evident. It's not about one man having the truth, it's about having a free and open society, a marketplace of ideas that allows what is happening now: discussions on reality, morality, and which direction we should go. One person claiming to have all knowledge and enslaving everyone else does not work under my morality... and the whole goal of the truths is to reach and practice my morality. In other words, we can't have a "truth" like dictatorship when dictatorship itself is an affront to the morality being strived for.

I'm starting to see your point, and I think I agree with it. Tell me if I'm mistaken here.

Basically, there is an underlying truth to everything - reality is objective. Thus, right and wrong are cut-and-dry issues. Whether everyone agrees that one action is right or wrong, it is, most definitely, right or wrong. Thus, the morality of truth does not require that other people believe it. It requires nothing. It is true, regardless of how people may perceive it.

This brings to mind a quote from the last Matrix movie:
"Not everyone believes as you do."
"My beliefs do not require them to."

 

[cwjerome]

Yeah! That is the basic axiom of "existence exists". It is what it is: true, factual, reality... totally independent from the viewer and his perspective. The goal -the task- is to identify the facts of reality as best we can using best possible evidence, and act rationally i.e. in accordance to this reality. Anyone who believes in an objective reality by definition believes in right and wrong, good and bad... in other words, "universals".

This is why cultural relativists are subjectivists (subjective reality). They say reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered -in whole or in part- by the consciousness of the perceiver, i.e. by their feelings, wishes, or whims. The subjectivist denies there is any such thing as "THE truth". In their opinion, truth varies from person to person and group to group. The infallible sign is the person who cannot say "It is true", but instead says: "It is true- FOR ME".

As you can imagine the morality of these opposing philosophies are night and day.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Jewish society is the best.

The Greeks say the same thing.

 

[cwjerome]

There is no time like TODAY to start analyzing cultures and making value judgements on them. Why? Because conflict between the radical Islam and the West is getting serious, and we had better understand the relationship between them. People had better realize the fundamental differences between the two and what that impact might be. This isn't battle against people or countries... it's a battle of ideas and culture. We had better understand what they both stand for... our may life depend on it.

 

[cwjerome]

Why do people who bash the US, or bash our policies, or bash the Prez often argue there is no right or wrong, and there is not good or bad, and some ideas can't be better than others? If nothing is better than another then why argue, why make value-judgements, why invoke the term "evil"??

Does this mean there are absolutes... only as long as you're attacking the US in some way?