If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
moral relativism
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
so... can we impose our morality on otehr cultures?
this is a tough one. To an extent, I think cultural imperialism is arrogant and wrongheaded, and I think, for example, laws in islamic country's about drinking, porn etc. are just something one has to accept. HOWEVER... I do have certain moral absolutes. Capital punishment is just wrong. Cutting someone's hand off for theft is just wrong. the treatment of women in many islamic countries is just wrong. forced marriages are just wrong.
Where do you draw the line?
this is a tough one. To an extent, I think cultural imperialism is arrogant and wrongheaded, and I think, for example, laws in islamic country's about drinking, porn etc. are just something one has to accept. HOWEVER... I do have certain moral absolutes. Capital punishment is just wrong. Cutting someone's hand off for theft is just wrong. the treatment of women in many islamic countries is just wrong. forced marriages are just wrong.
Where do you draw the line?
0
Comments
Im not bothered about imposing my morality onto anyone. Its not our place to dictate what people can and cannot do, unless it involves us. Yes I think their culture is wrong in many ways but its not my place to change it.
That's fairly stright forward for most things. The line is drawn where the 'other culture' opposes our own. So, for example, our culture says that it is wrong to chop of the thief's hand, and therefore we object to that part of Islamic culture.
Porn is a contentious issue, as we found out on the other thread, so the line becomes blurred. Alcohol is the same - even our own culture is divided on drinking, it's just that drinkers have a louder voice.
Is that what you meant?
Yes. Should we?
Capital punishment may be wrong, but the death penalty isn't, not if it's the most efficient way to deal with a miscreant.
Is there a universal moral standard? I say yes: it's called survival. Unfortunately, there are so many -- hideously many -- variables to consider in calculating how best to achieve that objective that we are forced to make do with inaccurate approximations for use in making day-to-day moral decisions. Approximations like 'premeditated killing is wrong,' and 'thou shalt not steal.'
Ah..If thats the case then we should definately impose our culture on them...
The problem with moral relativism is that if people can have their own moral standards, and morality is constantly changing, then we cannot really criticise something such as canibalism in other cultures since after all it is their own cultures. And since the theory is not absolute i.e. does not follow any sort of rules, since moral standards change from culture to culture, then something like the UN Declaration of Human Rights cannot really apply to them because it is a set of absolutes.
Relativism does however prevent the dominance of a single culture so we can't go around saying e.g. its better to be an atheist than a christian. But the disadvantage of that would be that we couldn't criticise the actions of the Nazi culture because it was 'right for them'
But just because different views exist, that doesn't mean that they are all equal
I think the most paradoxal thing about relativism is that if the belief that all differing moral codes should be supported was adopted universally, then it does become an absolute moral code
Robert A Bowie has written a fantastic textbook called Ethical studies, I really recommend you read it, it also contains extracts from key texts.
it all depends on your personal viewpoint, and the way you have lived.
A lot of people in this country would disagree with you on many of your points. As would a large number of people in countries where the death penalty is still used as punishment.
As for drawing the line? It depends, as always majority rules. Muslims coming here for example, have to submit to the will of the majority. Christians going to Saudi Arabia for instance have to submit to the rule of the Islamic majority there.
It doesn't matter wether YOU think capital punishment is just wrong, it is irrelevant when there are hundreds of millions of people who think it is right.
I will critiscise elements of Arabian or Latin American culture as much as our own if I think they are wrong and I see no problem in trying to change these cultures else what is the point in believing that something is right and another thing is wrong?
Or preaching to the third world countries?
But I do get what you are trying to say.
Isnt that what the empire builders said? Our morals are right, yours are wrong so learn from us.
I think at the very least we should impose trade embargoes and economic sanctions against countries such as Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, who still believe stoning women to death is a reasonable punishment for adultery. But then, the former is an ally against evil Iraq, so everything is forgotten. I also think invading and toppling a government can be justified in extreme cases, like Afghanistan. If only we didn't do it selectively and remove the other tyrants in Burma, Indonesia, Saudi, etc etc etc...
go away is lucid and interesting about it, I reckon. might try and find that book.
If we want it to be a practical question to focus it a bit, then yes: should we impose sanctions on ocuntries which have systems which we fundamentally disagree with on a moral basis? And also do we have a right to take action if, say, a westerner takes drugs into Iran and is very severely punished?
I think this is an extremely complex question ... there are extremely strong arguments both ways. The idea of forcing our society on others sickens me - but some of the things whihc are deemed acceptable in other cultures sicken me too.
It doesn't matter wether YOU think capital punishment is just wrong, it is irrelevant when there are hundreds of millions of people who think it is right.
it does matter what you personally think, in my opinion. Otherwise all morality is pointless.
IF there aren't any absolute moral values, which seems to me to be the natural extension of what you-re saying - the majority belief is the right one - then what right do we have to condemn anything at all? even, for example, popularly acclaimed genocide?
No, I think there must be certain absolutes which we hold to be completely fundamental which we should seek to promote as widely as possible. Otherwise we can't even impose morality in our own society.
Of course, there is a point of view which holds that morality is what's practical. It's easiest for everyone if we have laws against murder and theft and os on. But if we believe this then we're liable to get into pretty awful positions - like executing people because they hold difficult and unpopular views.
(of course, I'm discussing all of thi swith my onw moral bias...)
my head's starting to hurt, so I'll shut up