"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

Rev Hellfire

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you're mixing up Ireland of the past and Ireland of the present. With the Internet, mobile phones, etc any bit of news can be passed on extremely quickly, and often with "facts" collaborated by official sources. I can remember my grandfather talking about when the Easter Rising occurred and how he didn't hear about it until two weeks later, and didn't have any real interest since it didn't affect him. Such a response was common right into the 70's.

You may have a point there, perhaps it was known in localities but not nationally. Hence moving the 'problem' solved it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I dispute that. Oh we're making the right noises, and plenty of abuses are coming to light, but its still a relatively new development in our modern history. There are still plenty of demons for the Irish people to face and sort out once and for all.

But the point is we are at least moving to address these injustices.
Though its also true that women's groups for example are forming in Islamic countries and attempting instigate change there, some countries even now have requirements for women in their parliaments. So perhaps I should retract my view that these countries are not changing, perhaps its just not at the pace we demand?

Pittens

To a certain extent people are arguing at cross purposes here.

i dont like cultural relativism but I am willing to concede ( to klaz et al) that we should not get involved in foreign countries.


The differences between me and klaz are (it seems) nevertheless profound. I think that the Western way is better but we dont have the power, or the moral authority, to impose our views on others. He seems to think that all ideas of being better culturally are themselves culturally imposed, regardless of what he thinks himself (Klaz admitted his own personal views when he said that he liked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and thats why we shouldn't impose our views.

To surmise. I think we are superior but powerless to intervene, he thinks - despite his own personal opinion - that we cant judge either way.

In the end however these two philosophies: western chauvinist ( me) and cultural relativist ( him) are not too dissimilar in their end. Pull the West from the rest of the world.

However, we make uncomfortable bedfellows.

strobe

Pittens wrote: »

i dont like cultural relativism but I am willing to concede ( to klaz et al) that we should not get involved in foreign countries.

I think this is part of the problem with the whole situtation aswell. To simply say "we should not get involved in foreign countries" is too inflexible. I'd imagine yourself and most others would agree that we very much should get involved in a foreign country, if we have the capicity to do so, in the case of mass genocide, for instance. That's an extreme example but I'm sure there are others. So a simple, we should not get involved once it happens outside of the imaginary line that marks our political territory, is not a reasonable position to hold in my opinion.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You may have a point there, perhaps it was known in localities but not nationally. Hence moving the 'problem' solved it.

Pretty much.

But the point is we are at least moving to address these injustices.
Though its also true that women's groups for example are forming in Islamic countries and attempting instigate change there, some countries even now have requirements for women in their parliaments. So perhaps I should retract my view that these countries are not changing, perhaps its just not at the pace we demand?

Yup. Thats my take on things. We're impatient with other countries to change to suit our opinions of how things should be. The annoying thing though is that we're not as impatient with fixing our own problems with corruption, the homeless, the traveling community, drug abuse, etc.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Thats my take on things. We're impatient with other countries to change to suit our opinions of how things should be. The annoying thing though is that we're not as impatient with fixing our own problems with corruption, the homeless, the traveling community, drug abuse, etc.

I think how we (or the we who decide these things) attempt to go about fixing those things has less to do with a lack of impatience and more to do with how they go about trying to fix them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

i dont like cultural relativism but I am willing to concede ( to klaz et al) that we should not get involved in foreign countries.

I don't believe I have suggested anything to support cultural relativism. [I actually had to google it to see what it meant]. I do believe that there are issues with other cultures which I would like to see changed/fixed, however I believe it is up to them to do the fixing. Until the people of the respective culture decide that such practices are wrong or should be changed, nothing will. Foreign intervention is more likely to make things worse.

The differences between me and klaz are (it seems) nevertheless profound. I think that the Western way is better but we dont have the power, or the moral authority, to impose our views on others. He seems to think that all ideas of being better culturally are themselves culturally imposed, regardless of what he thinks himself (Klaz admitted his own personal views when he said that he liked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and thats why we shouldn't impose our views.

I lived most of the first 25 years of my life in the West. Lived in Ireland, the UK, Germany, and then Australia (which is essentially Western in culture). Then I lived in Thailand and China, and have spent time in a number of other Asian countries traveling for periods of a month here and a month there.

I've learned that there are many ways of doing things, many beliefs as to why we're doing something, and many side-effects to those actions. The "western" way (hardly comprehensive considering the many differences between western nations and their laws) isn't always right. Personally, I believe we rushed into the modern age sacrificing many social support structures, and quite a few morals. The western way has its own share of failures.

And as for imposing "our" morals, look at where that has gotten us. Between the US, colonialism, and religious dogma the western world has managed to create conflict in just about every country we/they have interacted in. We've broken up cultures, imposed our own moral centers, and then wondered why everything went wrong.

To surmise. I think we are superior but powerless to intervene, he thinks - despite his own personal opinion - that we cant judge either way.

I'm loving your interpretation of what I believe. Perhaps you could ask questions rather than making it up for me?

In the end however these two philosophies: western chauvinist ( me) and cultural relativist ( him) are not too dissimilar in their end. Pull the West from the rest of the world.

However, we make uncomfortable bedfellows.

In your head, maybe.... Because you've done what the "West" has done for centuries. Looked at what people have said, looked at their culture, read between the lines, made up your own story to suit your own leanings, and then... :rolleyes:

Pittens

I'm loving your interpretation of what I believe. Perhaps you could ask questions rather than making it up for me?

Dude, I can only guess what you believe from what you write, I am not going to ask questions. You may have had to look up cultural relativism, but the idea that we cant intervene because you ( I quote) "'have learned that there are many ways of doing things, many beliefs as to why we're doing something, and many side-effects to those actions" when you have been asked specifically about female mulitlation and the killing of a 13 year old rape victim, is itself, the very definition of cultural relativism.

So what if there are "different ways" of doing things if the other ways of doing things are wrong. I say they are wrong, you are clearly saying that we cant judge.

Here is a clear cultural relatives quote:

Because you've done what the "West" has done for centuries. Looked at what people have said, looked at their culture, read between the lines, made up your own story to suit your own leanings, and then...

Nobody is "reading between any lines" here. Either the killing of the 13 year old rape victim is wrong, or it isnt.

If it is , and I believe it is, then the reason I believe in non-intervention is because the West doesn't have the power and it wouldn't work. Not because we shouldn't but because we can't.

But in the end the culture which doesn't stone 13 year olds is superior.

wonderfulname

Truley wrote: »

However you claim that the western world had 'better' education systems and 'better' farming techniques. And that western occupants are responsible for making middle-eastern culture 'better.' .

The western world has knowledge of better farming techniques, these are not always put to use mind you but it is a fact. Look at how farming in Ireland evolved, from an industry which was almost purely subsistence to the business we see today. What were the non mechanized shifts which took place? An understanding of soil structure and fertility would be one, knowledge of biodiversity in grazed land another. Two basic examples which when transferred to some countries would make a world of difference.

Better education systems is something we don't have, we do however have more inclusive education systems, which strive to accommodate everyone regardless of sex, race or monetary situation. I was about to put religion in there then i realised that would be a lie..

And I've said it before and I will again, forcing viewpoints or beliefs on people is not acceptable, but there are some cultures which actively mentally or physically damage groupings within them, and this is a practice which should be stopped.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

Dude, I can only guess what you believe from what you write, I am not going to ask questions.

You don't really have to guess... My posts have been extremely clear as to my stance on this. Frankly I'm wondering why you have to put your own spin on them.

You may have had to look up cultural relativism, but the idea that we cant intervene because you ( I quote) "'have learned that there are many ways of doing things, many beliefs as to why we're doing something, and many side-effects to those actions" when you have been asked specifically about female mulitlation and the killing of a 13 year old rape victim, is itself, the very definition of cultural relativism.

Again, I didn't say no to all intervention. I have asked time and time again for realistic options that would resolve the issues without creating more or worse problems in themselves. Something you have ignored. I have actually agreed with the intervention through the use of education and providing support mechanisms.

However, what you seem to advocate is trampling the rights of other cultures to choose their own futures, simply because you supposedly follow western beliefs/practices.

So what if there are "different ways" of doing things if the other ways of doing things are wrong. I say they are wrong, you are clearly saying that we cant judge.

Actually, I didn't say you couldn't judge. I said that no real change can occur in another culture without the desire for change by the people themselves. Thats a far cry from what you're suggesting.

Here is a clear cultural relatives quote:

Actually it was directed at you and your post...

Nobody is "reading between any lines" here. Either the killing of the 13 year old rape victim is wrong, or it isnt.

Never said it wasn't wrong. In fact I agreed completely with Donegalfella but questioned how such change should occur. :rolleyes:

See post #91 since I guess you somehow missed it.

If it is , and I believe it is, then the reason I believe in non-intervention is because the West doesn't have the power and it wouldn't work. Not because we shouldn't but because we can't.

I agree with that, except that "can't" is tied with "shouldn't". We shouldn't intervene unless we have the ability to improve the situation. Which intervention in the past has generally failed to do.

But in the end the culture which doesn't stone 13 year olds is superior.

Really? and if i could provide an example where such a culture has no problems in another serious area, and a western county does... where would that lead you?

Truley

Wibbs wrote: »

Well they pretty much did and do. One of Europes biggest advantages is that they have always been very very good at industrialisation. From way back. The history of papermaking in europe is a good one. So is movable type. Both Chinese inventions, but the europeans industrialised it in short order in a way the Chinese didnt, due to a different cultural mindset. They became very stagnant. China was essentially a medieval feudal society until the end of the 19th century.

Yes but there you are assuming that instustrial society equates to better society. That's a contestable opinion.

Like Pittens wrote the islamic achievements have been over egged and the european achievements of the time seriously undervalued. EG when Rome(western) fell and left Britain there were no water mills. By the time of the doomsday book, there were over 5000 in southern england alone. The so called dark ages didnt last very long at all. The problem is that scholars tend to concentrate on Rome, or the rise of medieval europe and gloss over the transition point.

That's not the same as saying that Islamic people/culture has produced 'little of cultural or intellectual significance for hundreds of years.' In this society what is considered cultural or intellectual significance is what can be packaged up and mass marketed. I think it was a very bigoted statement to make.

Agreed and most of the reasons are religious or cultural, not medical. While FGM is worse the similarities in reasons given for the practice are strong.

Which is why it will always be slightly hypocritical for people to condemn countries/cultures that practice FGM, as the people who carry it out will make the same arguments for FGM as the majority of American's do for male circumcision. The issues of pain and other problems are largly irrevelant in an argument, as to the people that practice it, it is seen as a necessary sacrifice for social acceptance or whatever. Likewise the potential to cause pain and lasting damage to the male is seen as a necessary gamble in order for male boys to be accepted in American society. Keeping in mind alot of females are circumcised as infants and go on to experience no problems in their lifetime.

Wibbs

Truley wrote: »

Yes but there you are assuming that instustrial society equates to better society. That's a contestable opinion.

Oh it certainly is. I would say an advancing technological society is more likely to lead to a better society though. It shows flexibility and openness to new ideas. Some of these ideas may be bad some may be good. A stagnant society has to get it right from the get go as its much harder to culturally change down the line.

That's not the same as saying that Islamic people/culture has produced 'little of cultural or intellectual significance for hundreds of years.' In this society what is considered cultural or intellectual significance is what can be packaged up and mass marketed.

Mass marketing is actually quite recent in the west. Couple of 100 years tops. So it doesnt really come into play before that. Viewing Islam in comparison to the west since the 12th century, the balance of cultural and technological advancement is most definitely on the side of the west. There's no comparison really. Nothing approaching the renaissance, the enlightenment, or the industrial revolution to name but three happened in the Islamic world(or indeed in the rest of the world). This is not to say it is anything to do with the populations involved, just down to geography, luck* and a more flexible intellectual culture.

Which is why it will always be slightly hypocritical for people to condemn countries/cultures that practice FGM, as the people who carry it out will make the same arguments for FGM as the majority of American's do for male circumcision. The issues of pain and other problems are largly irrevelant in an argument, as to the people that practice it, it is seen as a necessary sacrifice for social acceptance or whatever. Likewise the potential to cause pain and lasting damage to the male is seen as a necessary gamble in order for male boys to be accepted in American society. Keeping in mind alot of females are circumcised as infants and go on to experience no problems in their lifetime.

+1


*sometimes like the black death, bad on the surface but ultimately good. It broke the absolute power of and confidence in the church and broke the feudal system.

Scanlas The 2nd

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But why is it wrong? In order to have a practical moral system we can't just state something as right or wrong without a reason. We need to all agree first on some base level axioms of morality and work from there to create a decent system. I'm not saying it can't be done but my I suspect it probably can't as there will be contradicions always popping up in whatever moral system we create.

Pittens

In this society what is considered cultural or intellectual significance is what can be packaged up and mass marketed.

Firstly that is incorrect. Much Art - as defined by the art world - is distinctly anti-mass market. The masses are excluded, or hostile to it. Even for mass produced art, like the Cinema, critical attention - which defines art rather than box office recepits does not go with the most popular movie in any year.

Secondly, there is no reason why mass produced items should, or could, not be considered art. Citizen Kane wasn't succesful but it could well have been, ir was designed to be, and it would still be Art. John Ford movies were popular. Jane Austen is now a mass market industry. I could go on.

As for technology, the best we produce there is for the mass market.

nothing wrong with the mass market, it can produce art.And great industrial design.

( My own feeling is that there is far more art and technology in an iPhone 4 than an ummade bed. The first is mass market, the second isn't).

jackinyogrill

Pittens wrote: »

...there is no reason why mass produced items should, or could, not be considered art. Citizen Kane wasn't succesful but it could well have been, ir was designed to be, and it would still be Art. John Ford movies were popular. Jane Austen is now a mass market industry. I could go on.

As for technology, the best we produce there is for the mass market.

nothing wrong with the mass market, it can produce art.And great industrial design.

( My own feeling is that there is far more art and technology in an iPhone 4 than an ummade bed. The first is mass market, the second isn't).

At the risk of taking this even further off-topic, the American critic Scott McCloud argues that 'art' is anything human beings do that is not directly related to survival (eating, sleeping, breathing, fleeing from danger, etc.) or reproduction (you know). The only thing that separates capital-A Art from the great morass of our natural creativity is the intent of the person who produces it (i.e., whether your primary motivation was to create something beautiful and interesting, or to make money). Make of that what you will.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was unfortunate that this “Marxist rhetoric” reference (considered pejoritive by many) was used to discredit an earlier post, not based upon the post’s content, but rather upon an overly simplistic categorization and stereotypic label.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even in comtemporary Western societies we have allowed and encouraged opportunities for maturing children under majority age to gain valuable work experience and income through cooperative education, internships, workstudy, summer work, etc. (I part-time worked before age 17). This is not the issue of dispute, rather child labour laws were passed in the West largely because some companies created intolerable working conditions, low pay, and typically no benefits for a cheap source of full-time child labour.

Does anyone see the irony of insisting that other cultures/countries adopt our codes of conduct for the treatment of their citizens, when it’s OK to have a double standard for the treatment of our children vis-à-vis their children when there is an extraordinary profit to be made?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Totally Agree. Child Labour has been a part of their system of income for many countries for centuries, and westerners coming in telling them that its wrong, without offering a viable source of income is "stupid" [:)]. The simple problem I find with people who complain about child labor, prostitution, or other less attractive sources of income, is that they're unwilling to face the facts of the country in question, and the need for that income.

I can acknowledge and agree with the wrongness that people have to avail of these kind of industries, but I've also had the opportunity to see extremely poor people etch their lives out on the extreme bare minimum. Many of those people who complain about the problems, probably haven't seen true poverty. I certainly hadn't until I went to Asia and the M.East. Opened my eyes considerably, especially to what we consider poor in this country.

As for foreign aid, I'm a skeptic. Sure, I can see the benefits of educations, housing and the like, but I also see the problems that foreign aid brings. Firstly the dependence that can grow by the people receiving for that aid, and secondly the expectation of something in return for that aid. Governments tend to look for something in return, and IMO so too do the religious organisations that provide also.

If people want the the real problems of a country to disappear, then they need to provide real aid, real education, and real encouragement to the people/country. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, western countries/aid tends to drop in, make a scene, and drop out again, without dealing with the root problems.

caseyann

The way i see it nothing to do with us in their own countries,when they cross the border and try to bring it into our countries things that are in our view oppressive or dangerous or we dont agree with,then we can say no sorry not in our country.If they move to someone elses country these beliefs etc... are not accepted they should accept it or move somewhere where it is.

Dudess

People who use that line when it comes to violent/exploitative customs piss me off as much as racists do. And it's also quite patronising - it may be cultural, but what about the many people living under such regimes who have to suffer because of these customs?

The burkha is a bit more ambiguous though, for me. It's not violent - yeah it's repressive of women, but some women may still want to wear it, even if that "want" is the result of conditioning. You can't just switch off being conditioned though - it might still be a "comfort zone" of sorts to many women.

Pittens

The other problem with cultural relativism is that it is mostly fashion-think. The fashionable cultural relativist would have little to say about a stoning but a lot to say about redneck beliefs in the US which is as alien a culture for him as any.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

The other problem with cultural relativism is that it is mostly fashion-think. The fashionable cultural relativist would have little to say about a stoning but a lot to say about redneck beliefs in the US which is as alien a culture for him as any.

I have never really understood why posters have to classify others into such broad categories... cultural relativism is just another term to "fit" people into a category. It doesn't really matter what people have to say about a subject, but if you can affix a label, then their opinions are stuck with a certain vein of thought.

I guess i'm more interested in the posters that have an opinion on the subject, than the posters that wish to classify others opinions.

So perhaps you could talk about the subject matter rather than the supposed label?

Pittens

So perhaps you could talk about the subject matter rather than the supposed label?

ok.

I need to repeat what I said again, apparantly. This time without the advantage of labelling.

The other problem with knid of people who agree that we cannont judge other peoples culture because we don't have the moral authority is that it is mostly fashion-think. The fashionable kind of person who would agree that we cannont judge other peoples cultures because we don't have the moral authority would have little to say about a stoning but a lot to say about redneck beliefs in the US which is as alien a culture for him as any other.

There, happy? I am less happy as it took more typing: hence the convienient use of labels.

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

ok.

I need to repeat what I said again, apparantly. This time without the advantage of labelling.

Well, let me put it this way... Your first response that I received in email had this:

Pittens wrote:

"The "supposed" label is what we are talking about. Cultural relativists refuse to condemn other cultures based on the idea that we dont have the moral authority to do so. That is the basis of this thread.

The point is that there are quite a few people out there (myself included) who don't interfere in/with other cultures (or rather tend to minimize it) not from a moral standpoint or moral authority but simply because its not for us to do so. We have many different reasons depending on ourselves, the cultures involved, and the subject being discussed. [Actual first hand knowledge of the culture in question tends to top the list]

However, you seem to want to paint us all the same. This thread isn't about Cultural relativism... That "category" is only one side of a multi-dimensional shape.

The other problem with knid of people who agree that we cannont judge other peoples culture because we don't have the moral authority is that it is mostly fashion-think. The fashionable kind of person who would agree that we cannont judge other peoples cultures because we don't have the moral authority would have little to say about a stoning but a lot to say about redneck beliefs in the US which is as alien a culture for him as any other.

You're doing it again. You're assigning a category and then basically saying that any reason they have against interfering (or even not criticising) another culture comes down to something else. This is my problem with your use of Cultural relativism... You seem to believe that anyone that doesn't favor criticising/interfering with other cultures is a Cultural relativist...

There, happy? I am less happy as it took more typing: hence the convienient use of labels.

Convenient? I'd prefer that you used longer sentences which were clear, and gave meaning, than you use phrases which have "little" value.

You might notice that my own posts tend to be longer than yours.. But maybe that's just me... :rolleyes: