»Is it okay to ignore Cultural Relativism?«
|
|||
 For those unfamiliar with words I've used - Utilitarianism - The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Cultural Relativism - the concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong An example is... say a government taking all the women from a country where genital mutilation is part of the religion. That's ignoring cultural relativism and the government is 'saving' the women because they're doing a good thing by that government's morals. And by a utilitarian standard, it's a good thing for the women being 'saved' and creating a happiness/benefit for the majority of people. Another example is a government invading a country because they don't agree with the countries religion worshipping a god they don't.This isn't utilitarian because it doesn't really do good for many people. An example of following cultural relatvism 100 percent, is letting say a cult slaughter hundreds because it's part of their practice/religion. Heh on that note, utilitarianism can sometimes be a pretty bad thing. posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgMiscAnything that doesn't fit in any other categoryIs it okay to ignore Cultural Relativism? |
|
|||
|
In principle, I believe, we have no right to imprint our moral and ethical standards onto other cultures; this excludes, however, situations, when we close our eyes to people getting abused or killed. But,...whenever a country or a culture should be dealt with, it should be by the world community, not by individual countries! I strongly oppose the Iraq war, but much harm could have been spared, had the world community stopped Hitler earlier, or the killings in Rwanda... As for female circumcision... First of all,… this is NOT part of a religion, but of several cultures! And you cannot stop it that easily, because it is the women themselves, who support and execute it. According to these cultures’ understanding, women who have not been circumcised, are unclean and have no value within their society. Therefore it is very important for a mother to get her daughter circumcised, to make sure that she will get married and be accepted within her society. Several governments have prohibited female circumcision, but the majority of people do it anyway. Many examples in the past and the present are proof for the fact that you can hardly change a culture from the outside,… by force. It has to happen from within. In the case of female circumcision,…. I believe the best we can do is to support those women who stand up against this rite, and their efforts to educate their people. And the most important part for me, when we identify problems within another culture: We have to consult people, who know this culture by heart; who can analyze the problems and find possible solutions that make sense, and have a chance within this culture,…. to make sure that we don’t create more problems than we solve. The US should have done that more extensively, before invading Iraq….. posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
tozy: I strongly oppose the Iraq war, but much harm could have been spared, had the world community stopped Hitler earlier, or the killings in Rwanda...
The US should have done that more extensively, before invading Iraq….. The problem here, of course, is that Hitler was an imperialist and a genocidal dictator, but the Rwandan genocide was a tribal conflict. Could we have stopped it, short of dividing the country like we and the Soviets did Germany? I don't know. But I think that, regardless of whose fault the killings in Rwanda was - probably colonialists who destroyed the Rwandan folkways and drew arbitrary borders - more should have been done to educate the tribal groups about their history. Knowing history, and that these tribal conflicts inevitably lead to no resolution, is key to avoiding genocide. I don't think a military solution would have worked in that case. I am just not much of a believer in the concept of peacekeepers with guns, haha. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with you about the reasons for the conflict;...don't get me started on colonialism... But there is, I believe, a difference between peacekeeping with guns and protecting people from genocide. You cannot solve the problems with guns, but you can try to stop the killing (or much of it) and buy some time to find a solution. posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Let's assume there's a rising superpower whose culture is strongly vegetarian / animal rights. Would they have the right to declare war upon the United States for our meat-eating tendencies here? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's a kind of relativism that even I am not prepared to accept. Animals are different from people. Only the other primates have close affinities to us morphologically and behaviorally, and even they are weird. So I would say, no, that veggie superpower should not invade us. Plus they couldn't do it because we could annihilate them, no matter how many nukes they had. My view is that war is acceptable for the United States and other democratic countries by all means, provided that it can be won. Iraq can't be won. Afghanistan can't be won. Vietnam couldn't be won. Korea maybe, if MacArthur hadn't gone ballistic and approached the Chinese border, drawing China into the war. WWII and WWI definitely. Civil War and 1812, also definitely. Revolutionary War, for sure. I know people won't like this, but all I have to say is, what's the alternative? Appeasement? Sabotage? That doesn't work. It all has to do with the interaction between the invaders and the invaded. If someone invaded the United States now and "clarified" the Constitution to strengthen the separation between church and state, then I would support it, but the right-wing zealots would go terrorist like they did during Clinton (Oklahoma City). So it wouldn't work. People have a better sense of who they are at this point, which makes succesful invasion almost impossible, even in the case of, for instance, China and Tibet. But I don't think it's acceptable for say, Russia, at this point, because they have nothing to offer but oppression, which leads to terror. They are not democratic. Call me a hypocrite, but this is just Darwinian logic. To reject war in this respect is to reject the whole history of the world and wait for a messiah. But war is easy for me to advocate since I am unfit to serve. The people who actually do the fighting may have other ideas. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 it looks like people judge sometimes it's ok to ignore C.R. but sometimes no. their choice is dependent on their beliefs, as always. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Let's assume there's a rising superpower whose culture is strongly vegetarian / animal rights. Would they have the right to declare war upon the United States for our meat-eating tendencies here? No way! holy: I am just not much of a believer in the concept of peacekeepers with guns
(...) My view is that war is acceptable for the United States and other democratic countries by all means, provided that it can be won. So,... what would be the circumstances justifying a war? holy: People have a better sense of who they are at this point, which makes succesful invasion almost impossible, even in the case of, for instance, China and Tibet. Yep,.. and since Tibet is of no economical interest, but China is, the Tibetans can't expect any help from the world based on ethics or moral. People have been killed, culture and religion are being systematically destroyed,...and the world is watching. Poor Tibet,...lucky Kuweit. posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
tozy: holy: I am just not much of a believer in the concept of peacekeepers with guns
(...) My view is that war is acceptable for the United States and other democratic countries by all means, provided that it can be won. So,... what would be the circumstances justifying a war? We have a doctrine in the US called "clear and present danger", which is the condition which must be met before a war should be prosecuted. I guess I agree with that doctrine. And of course Iraq did not meet that criteria. They had a better case for Afghanistan, but still it could have been done without a war...that country is in the toilet now, half of its is controlled by warlords, so we didn't really win. I miss the old days when the US could win wars and be respected afterward. Not that I miss the carnage, etc., but you know what I mean. I don't think we should be intervening militarily just because we feel sorry for people. That's not the reason we invaded Europe and conquered Japan. We did it because of the danger our enemies posed to us. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 10:39 php B.B. |