SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
I think there's such a thing as too much relativism. Imagine what the middle east would be like without oil anyway.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
If we're talking about factual statements, then I'm not being relativist. Factual statements can be tested and falsified. But saying that Islam, as a religious practice, has been worse for the Middle East is a value judgment that we don't have the ability to make. It seems, to me, that you're suggesting that because the Western world is more developed and is largely Christian, while the Middle East is less developed and largely Muslim, then Christianity has thus been "better."
First, that correlation implies nothing beyond the coincidence itself. Second, assuming that Western technology is better for everyone around the world is very presumptuous and based on no factual evidence. Sure, we can measure the effectiveness of having an infrastructure that supplies water as opposed to having to walk to a well every day to get it; while one is certainly factually quicker, it is by no means better for both cultures.
First, that correlation implies nothing beyond the coincidence itself. Second, assuming that Western technology is better for everyone around the world is very presumptuous and based on no factual evidence. Sure, we can measure the effectiveness of having an infrastructure that supplies water as opposed to having to walk to a well every day to get it; while one is certainly factually quicker, it is by no means better for both cultures.
Dak
mentat
I'm going to take issue with this.
Having clean water delivered mechanically goes along with having waste properly disposed of. These two things alone save more lives (and time) than we can probably imagine.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That does not translate into "better," which is what we're concerned with here. There may certainly be people without such an infrastructure who want it, and it should then be brought to/provided/made for them.
However, there are also those who don't have such an infrastructure and don't want it; trying to argue that it would be "better" for them entirely misses the point.
However, there are also those who don't have such an infrastructure and don't want it; trying to argue that it would be "better" for them entirely misses the point.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
All of this Western bias this and Western bias that is overstated. The truth is that it is the Muslims who have difficulty or disdainfully incorporate ideas from other cultures in their societies.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It actually can't be overstated. You're committing it as you speak, as you've committed it countless times in previous posts.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
When it's used in the manner which you are referring to it is both endless and pointless. How can we critically look at any culture or nation. Every bad thing probably had an origin that someone could relate to culture or it being "their system" or something. The places we're talking about don't have different economic models anyway, really, they just have socially conservative societies and higher (than the UK) levels of religiosity.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's not intended to consign us to relativism. We act presumptuously and ignorantly when we occupy other countries and don't understand why they resist. Having the mentality that our ways are distinctly superior will never convince anyone, and in fact they end up doing more harm than good specifically because other cultures resist. "Better" is not something that can be factually determined, because "better" also includes cultural values and beliefs that accompany material practices while not being measurable alongside them. When you ignore this and focus purely on the material, you invite hostility and resistance.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not advocating democratic pluralism or relativism. This is a necessary starting point for any effective ethics. I'm not positing this and then saying, "Let's just leave everyone to their own belief systems." I'm saying the contingency of any cultural body is automatically equivalent to any other, regardless of technological development. I don't think Native Americans would argue that Western technology was "better" for them than the practices of their ancestors, even if technological innovation has made getting food easier.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
Cultural relativism is generally problematic for two main reasons, I think. First of all the people who demand of it often have absolute beliefs or are true believers and therefore would presumably be incapable of viewing any other culture in a relativistic manner, as evidenced by the extreme intolerance towards minorities that exists in the Muslim world. Secondly, we live in a globalized world, there are communities of these groups in the Western world and if we allow them to live according to a different set of rules than us then it can create the basis for continued antagonism between them and the current majority group over time. I think the history of the Jews in pre-Modern/Medieval Europe is a good example of this being the case.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's not true. Islamic extremists never espouse cultural relativism. Scholars and politicians do, occasionally, when talking about Islamic extremists. But fundamentalists of any sect never endorse relativism.
Furthermore, I'm not advocating cultural relativism. I'm advocating not believing the West is the savior of the world. Cultural relativism isn't an ethically intellectual position in and of itself, but neither is presumptuous intervention in other countries' affairs. Cultural relativism should merely be a starting point for a truly global and intellectual ethical framework.
I don't understand. I see your point from a legal perspective; but are you saying that the Jews should have been forced to convert to Christianity?
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
Or just not be allowed to practice things which the Christians weren't. From our point of view it would be better to just generally legalize usury though, and speed up development.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
Well, I don't think the first point exactly fits into the No True Scotsman fallacy. Large societies and "civilizations" can't lock themselves away from each other very successfully any more, they probably haven't since the Opium wars, it is kind of important that we reach some kind understanding. It's not that they don't apply cultural relativism so we shouldn't, it's more like they don't, so even if we do, there is still a problem.
Secondly, the thing about that that point is that the way human cultures and identities interact with each other seems a little circular and repetitive. In Yugoslavia, people went from apparently being irreligious and concerned with the state identity to being in a bloody ethno-religious conflict, which reawakened all of those identities. I really see no evidence what so ever for this being a point in human history where conflict over religion has reached some kind of end point. Conflict over supposed privileges or discrimination between communities has hardly come to an end either. I used a historical example, but it's not like that was the last example of it and there really is no evidence that people have stopped caring about this type of thing. It actually increased around the end of the Cold War (statistically) and is generally associated with economic failure and the break up of periods of globalisation.
Dak
mentat
That you have an extremely Anglocentric point of view is evidenced by only recalling as far back as the Opium Wars in searching for a time in history when nations "could not avoid each other".
Peoples have been trying to force each other to do as they want them to since "day 1", whether on a local, regional, or global scale. That it sometimes takes the shape of a town hall meeting and sometimes takes the shape of a nuclear bomb doesn't change the underlying issue: Other people shouldn't be your property.
Peoples have been trying to force each other to do as they want them to since "day 1", whether on a local, regional, or global scale. That it sometimes takes the shape of a town hall meeting and sometimes takes the shape of a nuclear bomb doesn't change the underlying issue: Other people shouldn't be your property.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
What's your solution though? Open borders and cultural relativism inspired law? Toleration of intolerance? Allow the aggressive immigrant group to persecute the smaller immigrant group that came to seek asylum from the other group in the first place? Allow poorer white families to be a whipping post for post colonial rage?
Dak
mentat
Anarchy
Despite all of our technological progression, taking care of us and ours, and pursuing our dreams, are pretty much a full time job.
Creating a situation where people can pursue dreams that don't involve injury to others would be optimal.
Everyone's an immigrant to somewhere, unless you or your family never ever moved anywhere. Even moving to the next city is an immigration.
