a_note_on_cultural_relativism lycanthrope emotional reactions are recognizeable across cultures. we do not have the empty doll's eyes of reptiles which see only cold inert matter in another, only the pulling of coarse triggers. We mammals have keys to the subjective state of others. We can see pain and hate and fear as well as love, in any culture. no person expresses true hate with upturned lips. and don't give me this duplicitous more constant mood where smiles are forged, i mean the instant reaction. In this way, we can tell beyond custom when something is "universally" right or wrong. or as dr. seuss famously put it, red fish blue fish one fish two fish. 020806 ... dB Where did you come from? This is good. Amen 020806 ... lycanthrope well some folks try and tell you that a clitorectomy is as harmless and subjective as christmas presents. and there's gotta be a way around that. 020808 ... zeke i am an unapologetic relativist. i think this idea has been sadly misappropriated by the vested interests of people who defend cultural hegemonies. it is sad that relativism has become an insult. fear of self determination is mistrust in human nature. i separate ethics and morals thusly: my ethic guides my intentions toward others. my moral standards guide what i do. i think culture is part of a gradient in scale from a person to humanity as a whole. relativism is merely a kind of respect for "other" and an acceptance of intimacy on every scale. having said that, i must say that relativism requires some pragmatic principles. i believe that the principles implicit in relativism create a natural tendency toward ethical and moral behavior without any underlying source of certainty or authority. 051118 ... stork daddy relativism would require a person to accept someone who doesn't believe in individual determinations as well. serial killers certainly have their own moral and ethical standards, but it is hard to imagine they'd be respected even by a relativist, largely because they dismiss the right of others to self-determination. so even relativism proscribes certain viewpoints. there will always be societal compromises as long as there is society, the question then is which type of regulation should there be. i'm in favor of a more universal standard of right or wrong, and i think in some ways this shares many features of what you deem to be true, individually based relativism, since it is a largely human quality to value one's ability to choose for one's self. i'm saying, however, that humans and their notions of morality are not born in a vacuum but rather are a combination of our inborn nature and our cultural response to various circumstances. my ideal is societal regulation that looks at what is unvarying in humanity across human cultures in various situations rather than deferring completely to the particular solutions of any given culture, which often ignore what is most often the case. if circumstances mandate we strike against something that is a general human tendency, we should change the circumstances of that culture, rather than suppress the general human tendency. 051118 ... zeke some negative examples of wide spread cultural norms: the subjugation of women class caste systems endogamy enforced religiosity juntas corporal punishment enforced conformity in the societies where these are practiced, they are the preferred status. are they good because they are the norm? who would judge this universal humanism. would it require majority, plurality or unanimity? would it arrive from referenda or be a crafted document resulting from a star chamber? how would it be enforced? i ask because it seems to me that these are very personal issues. i was referring to a personal ethical and moral choice. i like to think i can recognize people with similar convictions by the shadows they cast in their everyday lives. people know. respect is obvious. it is a way of being, not of governing. 051118 ... stork daddy i agree with you as to the personal decisions. and i agree that widespread cultural norms are often a bad thing. but the very fact that you and i can recognize that they are a bad thing is indicative of a standard that is not, perhaps, rooted to one's cultural upbringing. furthermore, as long as humans enter into social contracts there will be some form of governance, and some form of compromise, where some rights are foregone so that others may be obtained. i think that democracy with a presumption as to some rights (inalienable yada yada) is one of the best systems yet struck upon, and i think it is the duty of all with a mind towards a more enlightened society to seek to ever improve it. i don't think this requires a star chamber, yet neither do i think it is possible that all people's personal morality will always be recognized and validated by the majority, but i think that is a function of social compromise that is hard to avoid. i'm merely saying that the subjugation of women and such are problems we must face. the very reason we know them to be problems is the unhappiness they cause in a large portion of society. we must reconcile what is with what our hearts feel should be. the only way that can be voiced is through some sort of vote. by spreading such a voice across humanity in its widest sense, we will most likely achieve the clearest sense of what is inexorably moral from a human perspective. that's the theory anyways. i don't really believe in right and wrong as abstract platonic ideals, i largely believe that morality is relative, but that the appropriate frame of reference is universal rather than cultural. it is by framing our reference this way that we get the best sense of what most humans consider moral, rather than what some humans in a particular situation find moral. all i'm against is one particular individual claiming that because he believes he has a right to rape and pillage all day long, that it is right. because no true morality exists, it is an empty proposition. it is therefore practical to look to the society we interact with to determine what is right, since for all practical purposes (what you can get away with, and what you will be punished for) it is larger society that defines right and wrong. and as a function of our world becoming more globalized, the appropriate standard is humanity at large. i also believe that some aspects of morality are somewhat fixed in our nature, and that while a person can exist in a way that contradicts the general tendency, there is no injustice in looking at such an aberration in the normative sense. most people do not want to cause supreme pain to someone when they love them, most people are not vengeful when no wrong has been commited against them. these are almost apriori moral anchors. is this to say they fit some abstract sense of right? no, but they are fixed generally in the human heart, and so are the appropriate frame of reference for one who wants to interact with other humans. ideas like, i can excercise my rights so long as they don't interfere with yours, are largely developments of emotional concepts we already possess. ideas like consent are largely recognizeable to every society that has ever existed. that the idea has been formalized in some societies and not others, i would posit, stems from democracy. and consent based morality most clearly describes my own philosophy. if you want to do something to someone, ask them first. if they're okay with it, you're okay with it. here we enter into the murky waters of consent, but it's a good starting point. i hope the above clarified my position. 051118 ... stork daddy and if the majority of humanity doesn't know what's good for them, i'll just direct them to the blathe intelligence_is and your post: the scientific method. then i'll hope for the best. 051118 ... zeke i think a weakness in the concept of large scale democracy is that they rely (perhaps of necessity) on an elite few to set the agenda that the democracy will enact. it is why the idea of leaders is still relevant. if a mechanism could be devised to follow instead of lead it would be a worthy experiment. 051122 ... z a hatian taxi driver in princeton, nj this morning told me that small third world countries are not suited to democracy because the people are not educated enough. he then went on to claim that people in those same places do better under dictators, citing papa doc's reign. 071217 ... somebody when i lived in central america, a Honduran barkeep told me something very similar, z 071218 ... - - 080730 what's it to you? who go blather from