Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

...Whether or not religion or morality is believed to be "absolute" or not doesn't take away its evolutionary utility...

Then perhaps, relativism is going to be very valuable when we are on other planets, and rub elbows with other intelligent beings. In the meantime, give me the values that made the U.S.A. the bestest country in the whole wide world. Yes, Max, there really is a Santa Claus.

0 Replies

Psst! Max! No there's not!

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

O.K., but what I cannot accept about relativism is that it negates any fervent beliefs, trivializing the import of context. And, since all beliefs have a context (i.e., western culture has judo-christian morality), being a relativist is just an academic exercise at best; at worst a fifth column philosophy for a culture, in my opinion.

The phrase "Judo-Christian morality" made me laugh. But let me answer this seriously. Judeo-Christian morality illustrates my point perfectly.

In the time of Moses, a man who raped an unbetrothed woman was expected to then marry her. It was the law, the woman (i.e. rape victim in today's terminology) had no say in the matter. You can read this in Deuteronomy 22... it is pretty clear that the morality of the Jewish people in the time of Moses is not anything like the morality we follow today.

How do you explain this, Foofie? Was the law of Moses upon which the Jewish faith was based immoral? Or is it possible to say this law was made for a certain time and culture even though it isn't relevant today?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
O.K., but what I cannot accept about relativism is that it negates any fervent beliefs, trivializing the import of context. And, since all beliefs have a context (i.e., western culture has judo-christian morality), being a relativist is just an academic exercise at best; at worst a fifth column philosophy for a culture, in my opinion.

The phrase "Judo-Christian morality" made me laugh. But let me answer this seriously. Judeo-Christian morality illustrates my point perfectly.

In the time of Moses, a man who raped an unbetrothed woman was expected to then marry her. It was the law, the woman (i.e. rape victim in today's terminology) had no say in the matter. You can read this in Deuteronomy 22... it is pretty clear that the morality of the Jewish people in the time of Moses is not anything like the morality we follow today.

How do you explain this, Foofie? Was the law of Moses upon which the Jewish faith was based immoral? Or is it possible to say this law was made for a certain time and culture even though it isn't relevant today?

I was not alive in Moses' time, so I do not know what the people thought of this law. You are using ancient Hebrews as a benchmark for morality? I thought most people consider Jews a priori immoral, based on the fact that they do not posit that "sex is a sin," as Christians might interpret morals?

But, it appears to me that your viewpoint on this thread is just a summing up of Anthropology 101. The reaction you might have gotten might be based on the thought that there are absolute truths, relative to morality. Regardless, the fact that you are taking the "relativist" viewpoint might also have a psychological analysis that you prefer to think that you do not follow the proverbial herd, and think for yourself, regardless if your viewpoint is really Anthropology 101. The herd mentality was written about to explain the 20th century world wars, and the antipathy of one demographic against another, which resulted in war.

But, I believe you shouldn't laugh too much at the Judeo-Christian concept of morality, considering the Romans laughted when the lions ate a Christian martyr. I find Judeo-Christian morality an advancement from what it replaced. But, who am I to pontificate to a Bostonian (a Brahmin no less).

Perhaps, your thinking is really reflective of your DNA, your ancestors having come here when America was quite a challenge, and definitely a rejection of any herd mentality in Europe?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

You are using Ancient Hebrews as a benchmark for morality?

A lot of Americans do exactly that. Most of the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, was given to us by what you are calling the Ancient Hebrews... you don't get to Judeo-Christian morality without Moses.

Judging by Modern Western standards you are going to conclude that any other culture, from Native Americans and Pre-Colonial Africans to the Law of Moses in the Bible was barbaric.

The question I am raising is whether Western Culture is actually morally superior to these other cultures. It seems to me that a prosperous person in most cultures will feel equally confident that their culture is superior, Aztecs, Hebrews, and Romans were indoctrinated with moral beliefs they accepted as absolute truth... just as we are.

1 Reply

I have a question for Glennn (or for anyone else who would like to answer this little quirk of Western Cultural thought)....

When we talk about genital mutilation (which certainly sounds horrible) we always talk about female genital mutilation. How important is the gender... would male genital mutilation be just as serious. The idea that girls are special compared to boys and need to be protected has a long history in Western thought from chivalry to Jim Crow laws to modern feminism. Is this the case of Western society putting its own gender stereotypes and politics onto indigenous cultures?

I am not modern Jewish male circumcision which I understand is done to babies with anesthetic.... and although it isn't consensual is fully accepted by modern Western culture.

What if there was a culture where adolescent boys had parts of their penis cut without anesthesia in a painful ceremony that left their genitals changed for life. And what if this procedure, still done to boys today, had a high rate of infection and dangerous complications...

Do you think the outcry from the West would be the same? Would Glennn even be aware about this tradition?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

How important is the gender... would male genital mutilation be just as serious.

Yes.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Hopefully you realize that I was being a bit funny, and that male genital mutilation does in fact exist in cultures. It persists today in cultures such as the Masai in Kenya.

The real question is; why is Western culture more horrified by female genital mutilation than it is by male genital mutilation. I think it is because Western Culture has always seen violence experienced by females as more horrific than similar violence experienced by males.

This isn't rational in any objective sense. Even the acceptable male circumcision, as practiced in the US, isn't consensual (one of the criteria you gave for the practice being morally unacceptable). If the moral standards of modern Western Culture represent absolute truth... you can't get there by objective reason.

What you believe is based on the historical perspective and narrative bias you get from our culture.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Whatever form pointless mutilation takes, it is . . . pointless. Who would argue otherwise?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Would you please clarify... are you against male circumcision as commonly practiced in the US and mandated by many forms of Judaism? That is "mutilation" in that it permanently changes the form of a man's genitals, and as it is done to infants is not consensual.

Is the US morally wrong to permit this practice?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Yes. I thought I answered that in my last post.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

That's very interesting (which is why I asked for clarification). I would just suggest that when you are talking about "genital mutilation" you drop the gender... and you would point out that it isn't just indigenous cultures that do the practice, but that it is a common and accepted practice in the US and other Western cultures as well.

Male circumcision is considered perfectly morally acceptable in the US and is a custom that practiced openly and celebrated every day.

This does show that you are willing to oppose immoral acts in your own culture as well as in indigenous cultures. That is something to be commended.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

My issue was never with culture or country. I've stated that several times in this thread. My issue is with the mindless, pointless execution of barbaric practices.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

The real problem then is who decides which practices are barbaric. Who is the judge?

Are you claiming that you have some power of discernment that allows you to see the absolute truth that other people can't see? If everyone has the ability to discern absolute truth, then everyone would agree about important moral issues. Most people in the US don't even with you about male genital mutilation... which is common in the US and few people think twice about it.

I don't believe in absolute moral truth. It is clear to me that morality only applies to humans, and different humans have vastly different ideas... it fits all the criteria for a human mental construct.

But even if there is some absolute moral truth, I don't like the idea that only few special people can access it. If that were true, they alone would be in the position judge the rest of humanity.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
So I guess you're trying to tell us that you have risen above cultural indoctrination.

Where have I said anything close to this? Every human being that lives in a culture has been indoctrinated; myself included. All I am doing is admitting my humanity.

I don't believe that Western Culture is superior to other cultures in any absolute sense (even though it is now the dominant culture). That is the crux of my argument.

I do prefer Western culture to any other culture... but that is to be expected.

Actually you are denying your humanity because you are arguing that you can't pass judgment on practices that are clearly harmful to young girls regardless of their cultural origins. It isn't a matter of Western culture being superior to any others, it's a matter of these practices being harmful. One doesn't need to be a member of Western culture to recognize this as evidenced by the fact that plenty of members of the cultures that accept these practices publicly abhor them.

You are clearly driven by a left wing ideological perspective on morality and therefore it is sweetly ironic that the most vituperative response you've gotten in this thread is from a leftist.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Who is the judge?

Anyone who understands what a cry of pain indicates.

Quote:

Most people in the US don't even with you about male genital mutilation... which is common in the US and few people think twice about it.

It is true that few people choose to think twice about it. That doesn't minimize the pain of the practice on the recipient.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

What is it about Max's bulldog- stubborn moral relativism that is so patently left wing?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually Snood is correct. The American Left is full of moral absolutism. I am a political liberal... but you may have noticed that I am at least as much a critic of the left as I am of the right. And liberal absolutists on this site are not exactly my biggest fans.

You are behind the discussion a bit. Why are Americans more worried about violence against young girls than they are about similar violence against young boys? Of course, the idea that violence against females is worse than equivalent violence against males has been part of the core of Western Culture for centuries.

This type of cultural bias would get in the way of any rational attempt to find absolute truth (even if there were such a thing).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Of course, the idea that violence against females is worse than equivalent violence against males has been part of the core of Western Culture for centuries.

Regardless of cultural influences, pain is pain no matter who the sufferer is.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

So Max, does male circumcision destroy a male's pleasure during intercourse? And if it does, how would you know. I understand that if YOU don't have a clitoris, it's no skin off your nose.......but that organ has 8,000+ sensory nerve endings and tends to be an organ that most women don't want to loose. The whole purpose of female mutilation is to destroy any sense of pleasure during intercourse. That's supposed to prevent women from having sexual pleasure and god-forbid ever developing lust for another man. The mutilation solves those pesky problems of women finding other males attractive and reduces sex to just another chore for the women who have been married off to become breeders to men who only see them as breeders and cooks and housekeepers.

It's a little girls dream come true.

Max, can you look your mother in the eye and pretend this is just you being devil's advocate? And for Christs sake don't ask me if I'm ok with male mutilation, I'm not, so don't be a putz.

2 Replies

Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know