Relativity of morality

So you think that slavery or genital mutilations are A-okay as long as they are justified by a particular culture?

No. Absolutely not. I find them deeply troubling and immoral.

You don't have to be a moral absolutist to have morals.

Statistics. You will find all sorts of behaviour everywhere. But what makes the difference is the frequency of poor bad decisions.
For instance street gangs surely have their morals, but how well organized is it ? What is the level of control ? How often do the rules fail ?
To my view 1% difference from one culture to another provides enough edge to grant an advantage and consequently dominance. Also remember that what is important is what you do within your group of reference not what you do to other groups...well that is important to but of 2 order importance...manage your enemies to a sustainable level...that lesson is worth listening even today.

The peaceful societies are never successful. Every successful culture I know about has reached economic prominence through the subjugation or destruction of another culture.

Can you give me any counter-examples?

Although, I did have a portion of my genitals removed shortly after I was born. This was a culturally sanctioned procedure.

I just explained you where is the confusion...
Group efficiency is internal not externally addressed in a first moment.
Its not to say that external diplomacy is unimportant, but not fundamental.
Just recently extending your concept of group become important as the level of complexity we are dealing with requires the expansion of what you consider your group. Today you need all kinds of minds and people bounding together in cloud to solve complex problems.

Note please that Neo Darwinism that explains the need for cooperation at complex tasking doesn't void brute Darwinism...nature is very efficient...
...if you don't need X or Y it will be axed.

The point being competing goes along with cooperation as need or lack of it sees fit.

South Korea. It was poor as dirt until just a few decades ago. The Miracle on the Han didn't involve any subjugation of any other culture, just its own.

It is as simple as people really getting to understand what "organized" means even before we get to the moral bit of it...rules must stay consistent within the group so productivity can unfold. If you waste to much time and energy dealing with a faulting rule system you have far less free time and communal brain power to develop technology that improves your group quality of life, dominance, and survivability expectancy.

Don't get me wrong about the Korean experience. The Miracle on the Han happened under a very brutal and oppressive dictatorship. Koreans now are ambivalent about it. They resent the oppression, but appreciate the economic development. My only point was that it didn't involve the subjugation of foreign people or cultures.

More towards the importance of cooperation: In the late 90's, just after I got here, there was the "IMF crisis." Koreans donated their gold and other jewelry without any pressure from the gov't. They pulled together because they wanted to, and as a result, they got out from under the IMF loan years ahead of schedule.

Why does war still exist ? Well Nature has unfolded different cultural schemes, diversity is important to explore all potential solutions. Nonetheless nature is "concerned" with cleaning the least efficient ones from the race (racing)...better solutions stay up worse go down. War is the way to enforce the cleaning.

This is not linear like I simplified above. Often instead of extinction you just have an increase or decrease of numbers regarding X genotype asset. Or cultural successful pattern asset. Nature always tends to conserve a certain degree of oddities if the environment changes and X odd group solution suddenly becomes the best most fit option.

Not a good example FBM. Korea was conquered by the Japanese in 1916 and then it was broken in two pieces (one controlled by the Allies) in 1945. South Korea is dependent on the United States militarily and economically.

Korea is a country (most people on both sides says this). Korea didn't subjugate other countries because it was itself subjugated. The fact that it is currently broken into two warring pieces after being conquered and occupied doesn't speak much for its success.

So let me see if I follow your train of thought...so you explain it away do to more complexity then you can deal with...USA being dominant has nothing to do with Korea self improving in the South...at best it may speed it up.

The South is democratic free and people cooperate willingly...not the North.
In fact the failure of the North Korea is a failure of moral understanding.
You don't ENFORCE cooperation by equalizing all people ! Meritocracy is central. Individual degrees of freedom help diversifying solutions if how when and with whom you ought to cooperate better is left open. If for one the state is essential to ensure the same set of rules applies for another if the state constrains individual choice at group bounding, it kills diversity on natural groups by mingling everyone together, it crushes creativity with homogenisation, and weakens genuine group bounding as people feel miserable. It also rips apart meritocracy within and outside multiple groups.

The gradual annexation of Korea started way back in 1876 and became official in 1910. What you're talking about is irrelevant to the topic. Koreans did it on their own, and did not subjugate any other culture or country in the process.

I am not comfortable with your anthropomorphism of Nature (you even capitalized it).

I don't believe that nature is a deity. It has no design or goals. It just is.

This Korean thing is a tangent.

My point is that every culture that has been "successful" over a significant period of time has done so by subjugating other cultures. This includes the Korean culture which has existed for thousands of years.

You are looking at the last 50 years of a culture that has existed for many thousands of years to find some "success". I agree with you that the southern half of Korea is mostly free. I disagree that it is a valid example of culture rising to dominance on its own strength based on merit. The fact is that before the US stepped in in WWII Korea was wholly subjugated by Japan, and the since WWII the US has pumped in billions of dollars of military and economic aid to keep South Korea "free".

My point is that the cultures that have become successful with their own strength have all reached economic prominence through times of genocide and/or slavery. This includes Ancient Rome, the Incas, India, China, Israel, Japan, Russia, England, Spain, the United States.

No one said Nature is a God. But efficiency surely is one of its core rules. So when I anthropomorphise it I do it so YOU understand better what otherwise would be more abstract talking.

Jesus man...do you have trouble reading ???
This is the third time I explain you OTHER cultures is irrelevant for group behaviour. The group needs be INTERNALLY self consistent with rules. EXTERNALLY it should compete conquer and destroy other cultures provided it has the assets to manage it. Its proof of their cultural health !

Not to mention there are all kinds of different styles of war going on....America won its cultural war with Hollywood !

Sorry Fil. You don't need to repeat this.

I read this point. I just didn't respond to it because I agree with it. When the Spanish conquistadors met up with the South American cultures, they clearly proved their cultural health.