Relativity of morality

@maxdancona,

...yeah just don't forget what sort of sophisticated "war" should be used for cultural dominance...Hollywood works better then guns...unless of course your problem is race not culture...in that case use guns.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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.
...

The Korean thing is a successful refutation of an absolute claim. Name a foreign culture that Korea has subjugated. Even one. That's the problem with blanket claims; it only takes one example to refute them. How about moderating your claim to say "most"? That would be easier to defend that "all" or "every."

1 Reply

@FBM,

I disagree, FBM, and I think you are being pedantic. And, it is an awful stretch to say that South Korea is a culture when most people on the Korean peninsula (North and South) consider themselves to be part of the same Korean culture. You don't lose several thousand years of shared history and culture with 60 years of separation.

The point remains.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Your point has been refuted. You're trying to hedge. South Korea went from rags to riches without subjugating any other culture. Fact. North Korea has gone from relative riches to rags, but neither have they subjugated any other culture or people.

Edit: I tutor North Korean refugees/defectors. They make it very clear that they are culturally distinct from South Koreans. They even have considerable linguistic difficulties to overcome in their efforts to assimilate, not to mention capitalism, etc.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Your point has been refuted.

No it hasn't.

If you are saying that South Korean culture sprung up from nothing 60 years ago and that nothing that happened in the ten thousand years before that matters, then I suppose you would have a point.

But it is a bullshit point. The people living in South Korea right now are Korean. They have a cultural history that spans back several thousands of years... a history that includes occupation by Japan and a long history of interaction of China.

Who do you think was living in Korea 100 years ago under Japanese rule if it wasn't the Koreans?

You can't just pretend that the Korean culture sprung up out of nothing 60 years ago (corresponding with the point that the US set up camp there).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Wrong. I said that S. Korean prosperity arose a few decades ago without subjugating any other country or culture or peoples. Please pay attention to your own argument.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Whatever. How does this relate to Moral Absolutism?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What is relates to is your claim that no country has ever succeeded without subjugating another. And that relation is refutation. How about moderating your claim to "most"? Not that that's really true, mind you.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Its the opposite...countries and cultures subjugate others by being better at self organizing within...then and only then can they afford to expand.
You don't build a house from the roof down...subjugation has costs and its only worth it when expansion doesn't trump your internal core. It is done with caution and one enemy at a time. Fail that and you end up being the one subjugated. It is quite normal weaker cultures join forces to defy dominance. Roman Empire's fate comes to mind. Of course some countries never learn with History do they ? They have to try it for themselves...let'em.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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

And that is indeed a form of genital mutilation which is considered A-okay in some cultures.

I hope you didn't do it to your sons, if any.

1 Reply

...ironically we are good to each other within our group in order to join wealth and strength to screw some other group.
Playing nice to be more bad ass its nature's latest and worse "perversion"...but heck without it we would miss Beethoven. God bless pervert good solutions.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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

And that is indeed a form of genital mutilation which is considered A-okay in some cultures.

I hope you didn't do it to your sons, if any.

This is an interesting example.

In my ancestral culture, this form of genital mutilation (of males only) was not only accepted, it was mandated. It was a direct order from God. People who weren't circumcised would face severe social penalties.

In my modern culture (secular United States) circumcision for males is optional (for the parents, the kid has no say in the matter), but it is completely accepted as normal and it is a ritual that is performed in hospitals. On the other hand in this culture the mere suggestion of any medical procedure on the genitalia of female infants is met with revulsion and horror.

Whether cutting off a piece of the genitalia of infants is moral or not seems to be a perfect example of how culture determines one's perspective.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

And I believe it is absolutely and always wrong to mutilate children's genitalia, whether boys or girls, and whether it's culturally sanctionned or not. Adults are welcome to cut their own flesh, of course.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

If your culture mandates that every male is circumcised and exacts severe social penalties for anyone who breaks that norm... just having everyone get it done as a baby somehow seems more humane than pressuring them to get it done as adults.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Correct !

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If your culture mandates that every male is circumcised and exacts severe social penalties for anyone who breaks that norm... just having everyone get it done as a baby somehow seems more humane than pressuring them to get it done as adults.

Yes, but the same reasoning applies to clitoris excision or to slavery: better cut your girls and teach your slave children to work hard as early as possible, right?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I don't think that this line of reasoning applies to slavery. For one thing, slavery can easily be undone.

But not surprisingly, the moral arguments supporting male genital mutilation can also be used to support female genital mutilation. Again, my point is that these arguments vary greatly from culture to culture.

You changed "genital mutilation" to "clitoris excision". I don't think is valid... there are many types of genital mutilation that don't involve excision. I don't think that removal of the male foreskin is at all equivalent to removal of the clitoris (in terms of medical seriousness or loss of sexual function).

However, I think in modern Western cultures... any modification of the female genitalia is met with horror, while male circumcision is still acceptable.

This cultural difference is interesting.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You changed "genital mutilation" to "clitoris excision". I don't think is valid... there are many types of genital mutilation that don't involve excision. I don't think that removal of the male foreskin is at all equivalent to removal of the clitoris (in terms of medical seriousness or loss of sexual function).

My point was that your reasoning ("it's more humane to do it to babies than to adults") applies to excision just as well.

Quote:

I think in modern Western cultures... any modification of the female genitalia is met with horror, while male circumcision is still acceptable. This cultural difference is interesting.

It's just another way to punish boys for being boys, with the subconscious motive of reducing their sex drive. I don't find it "interesting" -- "disgusting" would be more like it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Simply put one has to compare (and that is the hard bit) gain vs loss and measure which option is preferable to produce the best possible outcome for the individual. Peer pressure is not a small factor in the scale. In fact it is central on how humans measure their own degree of happiness. This is why cultures for most part of history don't super impose on other cultures habits with ease. Right or not the other groups react badly when their cultural referent is being forcefully kidnapped or suppressed. Hence why I mentioned previously that Hollywood does a better job then guns when it comes to change cultural paradigms in other cultures. Its not force feed.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You're peddling this moral relativist position, after i had p0inted out that "morality" is dependent upon the point of view of the moralist--i.e., the lion analogy. Yet you're attempting to sound plausible and reasonable after having said that i had contradicted myself (which you have failed to demonstrate) and after calling for humanity to "rise above" evolutionary imperatives.

This is why i make remarks about your understanding and your intelligence. You don't proceed coherently, and will quickly change the subject or even your expressed point of view when you are challenged. That is not a personal attack. Follow that to its inevitable and absurd extremity, and you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you personally. Frankly, you're just not very good at these sorts of exchanges, and although you may not like to hear that, it is not a personal attack to point out the flaws or your reasoning and exposition. It appears that you don't know what irony means.

1 Reply

Relativity of morality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know