The Cultural Left: Making the World Safe for Fundamentalism

[Jon Miller]

why are people mixing in science in an arguement about philosoply, ethics, morality, culture and th elike?

science is not like the others

Jon Miller

[Spiffor]

The rethorics of this article is horrible. These are Fezzisms which look good :

1. Take some group you don't like, and give them a name you don't like ("cultural leftists"), so that the wrongs of this group ashames the whole Left...

2. Make bold and unbacked assertions about them (absolute cultural relativists who are however loathing the west, cultural warfare), and take these assertions for true during the rest of your essay. NEVER have a hint of doubt about the truth of your assertions. The fact that there is no example or statistic to back them should not worry you.

3. Describe irrelevant consequences, and use some rethorics and "common sense" (i.e preconceptions or misconceptions you assume most people have, and will use while reading the article) to bind them with the cultural left.

4. Make the same gross generalizations about the opponents of the cultural left. As before, don't back them. Hold them for truth, and don't doubt about them for one second.

Voilà ! Your article is ready ! You can now send it to some newspaper who'll be very glad to insult the Left with this empty hull. Even though it has no contents, the hull is quite well done, so that'll do the trick.

[Spiffor]

About the real issue, i.e cultural relativism:

I think that cultures, ideologies etc should be judged through a clearly defined ethics, even though this ethics may be arbitrary (i.e imposed by the State, by the powerful Religion, by the junta of scientifics / philosophers in power, whatever).

As such, I have no problem with people or organizations having positive or negative judgments towards different cultures. Of course, I'd hope these same people could be able to criticize their own culture / religion without always laudating it.

Otherwise, we would have a crass ethnocentrism (i.e thinking that your group is the most important and the best, and judging only according your group's values and traditions), which is precisely the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. That's the ticket of the fundamentalists.

Some extent of cultural relativism is needed if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the colonizations, especially the African colonization.

1. We need people who are real cultural relativists as observers of cultures and religions, whether foreign or our own. Only a maximum cultural relativism can allow accurate observations.

2. We need people who have the authority to judge these cultures based on a precise ethics, whether they are priests, politicians, philosophers or scientists. These "high ranked moralists" must be aware that their judgment is not universal, and that it could be (will be) badly taken on the recieving end.

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

As a conclusion, my opinion of a "reasonable cultural relativism", is that of a system which allows personal and organisational judgments. But it keeps in mind that these judgments are not universally shared, and the judged group needs to have its views respected.

[Q Classic]

you know, at the rate that liberals are getting tarred and feathered by conservatives, i wouldn't be surprised if a small group of people began to believe that 9/11 and saddam's regime were created by anti-american liberal traitors...

[Az]

I just wrote a bunch of replies, but the server ate them.

Jon: where did you see that I said that science was a tool to answer ethical questions? All I said that a deity that may or may not exist is not better.

[Jon Miller]

it is better, because it is not misusing a tool

religion is not being misused to answer questions of ethics

science is, when you try to use science to do ethics, you weaken science

when you try to use religion to answer quetions of ethics, nothing negative occurs

therefore religion is better than science to use to answer quetsions of ethics

as is philosophy (for those of you that find the prolbem of the existence of a deity to be insurmountable)

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it is better, because it is not misusing a tool

religion is not being misused to answer questions of ethics

science is, when you try to use science to do ethics, you weaken science

when you try to use religion to answer quetions of ethics, nothing negative occurs

therefore religion is better than science to use to answer quetsions of ethics

as is philosophy (for those of you that find the prolbem of the existence of a deity to be insurmountable)

Jon Miller

All you seem to me to be saying is that science does not properly count ethics as being in its subject field while religion does.

But that doesn't mean religion is any more use than science in the sphere of ethics since it relies on metaphysical extravagance.

I could invent a subject called "Schmethics" which deals in ethical concepts but is otherwise nonsense and it would be on a par with religion, so what advantage is there really.

[Jon Miller]

no

science is this way of understandign our world

it does a fairly good job (As can be seen by all the technology we have, that it ahs given to us)

it is built arround experiments and mathematics in such away that everyone can agree on
1 the mathematics
2 the experiments (there must be repeatability here)

when you try and claim that science is your basis of ethics you are weakening science because you are rating something that is not mathematical or experimental equally with what is

in a sense you are taking us back to the time when what the church said about the universe, and what galileo said where taken on equal footing

as such you are trying to reverse all that we have acheived since the dawn of the age of enlightenment

as a scientist, I have reason to be upset

Schmethics would be much superior than science to answering questions of ethics

Jon Miller

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
About the real issue, i.e cultural relativism:

I think that cultures, ideologies etc should be judged through a clearly defined ethics, even though this ethics may be arbitrary (i.e imposed by the State, by the powerful Religion, by the junta of scientifics / philosophers in power, whatever).

As such, I have no problem with people or organizations having positive or negative judgments towards different cultures. Of course, I'd hope these same people could be able to criticize their own culture / religion without always laudating it.

Otherwise, we would have a crass ethnocentrism (i.e thinking that your group is the most important and the best, and judging only according your group's values and traditions), which is precisely the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. That's the ticket of the fundamentalists.

"Ethno" has nothing to do with it.

Some extent of cultural relativism is needed if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the colonizations, especially the African colonization.

"Let the darkies kill each other, they think it's ok"?

1. We need people who are real cultural relativists as observers of cultures and religions, whether foreign or our own. Only a maximum cultural relativism can allow accurate observations.

don't mind that.

2. We need people who have the authority to judge these cultures based on a precise ethics, whether they are priests, politicians, philosophers or scientists. These "high ranked moralists" must be aware that their judgment is not universal, and that it could be (will be) badly taken on the recieving end.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you continuing to insist there is no right or wrong?

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

Why not? It could be the ethical thing to do.

As a conclusion, my opinion of a "reasonable cultural relativism", is that of a system which allows personal and organisational judgments. But it keeps in mind that these judgments are not universally shared, and the judged group needs to have its views respected.

"We, the people of Babyeatlandia, thank you for respecting our customs and traditions."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) Bugger off if that is all you have to say.

Is that your counterargument? Weak, I say.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
2) Ideaology that advocate the overthrow of the status quo are inherently political.

You should distinct between Marx's definition of communism and what he advocated of achieving communism. Besides, not all communists are marxists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
"Let the darkies kill each other, they think it's ok"?

No. The failure of colonializations, especially African colonization, was to assume that the encountered people were savages. In America and Australia, these people were simply slaughtered. In Africa, things were a bit more subtle, as these people have witnessed the utter disappearance of all their cultural bearings (notably, African tribes didn't get their identity out of the territory they occupied, but out of their assumed ethnicity). The cultural void that is Africa right now partly explains why there are so many bloodbaths and so little willingness to solve problems together there. All of this because we were convinced our culture was inherently superior and that imposing it could only benefit the Africans. The disappearance of their obviously inferior culture was not a problem, it was a blessing.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you continuing to insist there is no right or wrong?

There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. Morals is dictated by influential human beings, and as such, no morals will be universal as long as humanity doesn't share a one and only culture.
"Good" definitions of right or wrong should hail from a precise ethics code, defined by the influential members of the culture (make it plural if several cultures feel they have the same values). I would actually have no problem with written ethics code which are as complex as laws (besides, laws often reflect the culture's morality). However, the people who judge cultures thanks to this ethics code should be aware that the ethics code in the targeted culture is different.
As such, the "judges" should be aware that their definition of right or wrong is a human, flawed and not-universal definition. As such, they shouldn't assume the target culture will agree with their judgments. Morals is generally to be used at an internal level.

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

Why not? It could be the ethical thing to do.

For you, but not for them. If you intend to do the right thing for a population, make sure that the population wants it, or somehow desires it.
Let's take the example of the Muslim veil (I purposefully don't take the most horrible things backwards Arabs still do to women). For many of us westerners, it is a scandalous mark of womens' inferiority in the Arab society. For many women who wear it, it is a cloth they'd feel naked / slutty without. Would it be ethical to force Arab women to take out the veil ?
Let's now use an imaginary example. Finland has become the hyperpower of the world, and believes it comes from its compulsory nakedness. All Finn scholars and priests agree : nakedness is really a liberation for the human being, and is the milestone that made the Finn society that harmonious and great. It is obvious the clothed populations must be freed of this oppression, and Finland will now use much of its huge power to promote compulsory nakedness worldwide.
Would you like the Finns to put up a significant pressure over Israel to have you naked ? After all, for them, it is the ethical thing to do.

"We, the people of Babyeatlandia, thank you for respecting our customs and traditions."

More seriously, as long as there is not a wind of change in the society, that means the people there are happy with eating babies. Attacking (or putting whatever pressure you want) Babeeatlandia would be counterproductive as they'd continue their tradition anyways, and will resent the attacker.
It doesn't mean their traditions should be tolerated as soon as they put a foot on your territory.

[Ben Kenobi]

If relativism benefits anyone it benefits the right, since it sanctions might makes right, which is their favourite hobby.

Remember all moral values are supposed to be equivalent, so why should your nation take precedence over another?

Relativism, for all it's faults, cannot sanction Might makes right.

That's a different ideology, inconsistent with relativism, that is often featured in the agendas of those who espouse relativism.

Hence my first post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Attacking (or putting whatever pressure you want) Babeeatlandia would be counterproductive as they'd continue their tradition anyways, and will resent the attacker.

It doesn't mean their traditions should be tolerated as soon as they put a foot on your territory.

Fine, here's a concrete example.

Suttee in India, where widows throw themselves on their husbands funeral pyres.

When the British took control of India, should they tolerate suttee, even without the woman's consent? I think that if you value human life, you have to protect the distraught widows from killing themselves.

[Spiffor]

Obiwan :

No, I don't think the British should have forced the end of Suttee if the women wanted it. However, if the women turned to the Brits to end this barbaric practice, I'd have been all for it.

However, there's a difference between changing some rules in a conquered territory and attacking a country for the sake of morals.

As the Brits were already in India, and prepared to stay long, minor tweaks in the traditions of the population were probably practicable.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Nah, just the US.

1 point for Lord Merciless.