Define "Family"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
To say that ethics is culturally relative is to make a somewhat controversial claim. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that the concept "morality" cannot be strictly defined. You're making the mistake of confusing the definition of a meta term with the definition of an object term. You could crudely define "morality" as "a system of human conduct dependent upon the concepts of the good and the right" without accepting that the good and the right are going to be the same in all cultures.

You can make a similar definition of family. "A relationship in human societies based primarily on genetic ties, which binds a group of individuals into a cohesive unit (as viewed by others in the society)" or something like that. And my point stands anyway, that cultural relativity is not sufficient to make a concept not respectable.

Scientific definitions of the family are irrelevant here

I was addressing the other part of your claim, that it's not a scientifically respectable concept, so they are.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You can make a similar definition of family. "A relationship in human societies based primarily on genetic ties, which binds a group of individuals into a cohesive unit (as viewed by others in the society)" or something like that. And my point stands anyway, that cultural relativity is not sufficient to make a concept not respectable.

And you've refuted yourself by using the word "primarily". That would be respectable in Aristotle's science, but not so much in ours. We tend to like stricter definitions. And "as viewed by others in the society" is otiose.

Are they a family because they are viewed by others in the society as being so, or are they viewed by others in the society as being so because they are a family? What's going to count as this particular cohesive unit is what makes people regard something as a family in a particular culture, not the other way around.

The point about relativity is not that relativity prevents a scientific definition (although it will in many cases), but that the cultural nature of the concept prevents a scientific definition of the object concept (it's merely an accident if the two coincide). I don't deny that it is possible to have a meta concept of "family", but I can't think of one that is informative and strict (and yours obviously sucked).

Relativity is simply an easy way of pointing this out. It could easily be the case that every culture had the same definition of "family", but that would not be sufficient to make it a scientifically respectable concept. For example, every culture has pretty much the same definition of "belief", but there are good reasons to think that "belief" and other mental terms may not be scientifically respectable (ask any eliminative materialist about that). In ordinary use we aren't going to face the same problems with "belief" that we do with "family".

So in political terms, the fact that family relations are culturally relative in the world we actually live in means that the use of the term "family" is going to be rather pointless other than as a rhetorical device. What people do when they talk about "family values" is to privilege their own cultural conception of the family as part of the natural order of things as a way of warding off objections. The same thing happens when people say that only heterosexual relations are "natural". This is pointless in a culturally pluralistic society.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Agathon
What counts as family is culturally relative. It's not a scientifically or philosophically respectable concept.

Surely it makes more sense to stop looking at what a family is and ask instead what it's function is?

A quick stab at an answer would be the raising of children in a given society.
Assuming that to be true, family = the manner in which a society raises it's kids.

I would have thought that this was a very important philosophical area since it effectively describes how cultural knowledge, language, ethical systems, religions, etc, are transmitted. I'm partial to the idea of memetics but perhaps I'm more predisposed to think this way about the family. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's so easily dismissed.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Assuming that to be true, family = the manner in which a society raises it's kids.

This is Spartaaa!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If you're still reading at this point, you'll be pleased to know that you've qualified for the "Wading through unutterable tedium" award for 2007.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Surely it makes more sense to stop looking at what a family is and ask instead what it's function is?.

I don't think that works either. Are a married couple who are childless not part of a family?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If you're still reading at this point, you'll be pleased to know that you've qualified for the "Wading through unutterable tedium" award for 2007.

At least I'm not a plagiarist.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Congratulations on achieving genuinely original tedium.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

"Hi! I'm Agathon! I can bore you in ways that no person has bored you before! Please may I put my hand up your blouse now?"

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Agathon
Science students can be so dense...

I think Kuci was recently claiming that he was doing a filosofy course, which presumably entitles him to talk complete bollix while keeping a straight face.

[Whaleboy]

This is Spartaaa!

That's too bad because I am BEOWULF!

I don't think that works either. Are a married couple who are childless not part of a family?

I wouldn't say that they are. Are a couple living together a family? What about two friends living together? At that point, cohabitation becomes the key factor. Or, one could define family by marriage but I dont think that's satisfactory because I think most people would agree that an unmarried couple with kids are a family.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with this definition is that modern definitions of "family" do not extend as far as the term clan. You also have some cultures where non blood relations are considered family members. For example: I might foster a child and make it part of my western family. Or I might marry a woman who doesn't take my surname.

Good point.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Congratulations on achieving genuinely original tedium.

Why are you spamming the thread? You obviously have nothing to contribute other than bitterness and ignorance, so why bother?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Because I have a willing taker, of course. And it's fun.

A quick reminder- if you want to take a pop at someone, it's generally better to avoid picking someone who actually enjoys it.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Agathon
Are a married couple who are childless not part of a family?

Nope. They're in a marriage. They won't be in a family until they have children (or unless they've moved in with mummy & daddy).