Cultural Relativism [Archive]

Ravachol

29th March 2010, 21:08

cultural relativism is the antithesis to cultural exceptionalism. Gee, I wonder which I'd choose?

That's a false dichtomy if there ever was one.

I agree. Apparently I'm a racist for being against the Iranian government according to a token Muslim identity politics anti-imperialist activist.

Haha, such nonsense. It's what we call the 'anti-impie' position in Dutch and German activist circles, unquestioning rabiad support for any group, person or nation-state opposing 'the West' (whatever that may be) under the guise of 'anti-imperialism'. Whilst I'm an anti-imperialist myself (and support working-class national liberation movements under conditions) this position is all-too common in 'Western' leftist movements, especially the ideologically starved groups unknowingly reproducing bourgois notions such as 'the West', 'the Third World',etc but inverting the worldview by supporting any player in the 'other' group as opposed to rooting their politics along solid class-lines.

Meh, or maybe i'm just a grumpy puritan :rolleyes:

bcbm

29th March 2010, 23:45

i don't think most people who use the term cultural relativism have any idea what it means

Wanted Man

30th March 2010, 00:03

Bilan

30th March 2010, 00:27

define cultural relativism.

As a meta-ethical theory, it asserts that there is no truth independent of culture. Essentially, that culture defines right and wrong.
Which firstly presumes culture is the basis of a society, which it is not; and secondly presumes the universality of culture, which it is most certainly not.

It also fails to define culture or explain its origin.

cultural relativism is the antithesis to cultural exceptionalism. Gee, I wonder which I'd choose?

No.

I agree. Apparently I'm a racist for being against the Iranian government according to a token Muslim identity politics anti-imperialist activist.

Yes, well, that doesn't surprise me. Cultural relativism is essentially moral isolationism, and is, in turn, preposterous. It's a way of removing criticism and legitimising any form of social organisation because "all cultures are equally right", which is to say, it's liberal nonsense.
It presumes that when one criticises another culture that they are promoting "their" own, which isn't the case: just because you criticise the Iranian government doesn't mean you're promoting the New Zealand one. That is an unfounded presumption.

And in addition, it is illogical. You cannot begin with an argument and then derive a theory from it. It doesn't work like that.
"There are many moral theories, therefore, there is no single moral truth or right and wrong which is culturally independent".
No.

black magick hustla

30th March 2010, 00:29

Bilan

30th March 2010, 00:30

Where I'm from, "cultural relativist" is sometimes used as an insult against anybody who dares to suggest that most muslims don't practice genital mutilation, or that street crime by immigrants cannot be blamed on the inherent inferiority of non-western culture. which doctor's post is interesting in light of this.

That's just a misuse of the term. A cultural relativist is merely one who asserts that "Truth", "right" and "wrong" are not culturally independent: they are determined by different cultures at different times.
Presumably, it's being used as such because the people don't understand what the word means.

Also, I'm afraid I'm not unsympathetic to which doctors post. Genital mutilation is fucked, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for it. It is cruel, inhumane and degrading.
Which doctors post only highlighted a very 'cultural relativist' response to such an issue (though with a sort of liberal, south-park-parody twist to it)

Bilan

30th March 2010, 00:32

Cultural relativism is not an ethical system. Its a way to understand the world. Which in my opinion is correct. The world of a man who lives in rural Tenessee, drives a truck for a living, and prays to god is different than the one of a liberal millionare who makes fun of christians.

It's a meta-ethical idea. It begins with a description, and derives normative ideas from it. That's why it's bullshit.
[/quote]

No its not. It is a method.

And your example only proves why it's bullshit. It merely asserts what is, and then claims it is right because it is.

Which is, of course, absurd.

It claims nothing is right or not. It just asserts what is. You cannot scientifically derive moral axioms or whatever, they are the deadweight of past generations on peoples brains.

Wanted Man

30th March 2010, 00:54

Also, I'm afraid I'm not unsympathetic to which doctors post. Genital mutilation is fucked, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for it. It is cruel, inhumane and degrading.

Really? I think it's pretty cool. :rolleyes:

The point is that some far-right commentators link genital mutilation to some inferior "Islamic culture", and anyone who disagrees with that view is a "cultural relativist" who is trying to rationalise genital mutilation.

I understand that that was not what WD was getting at, but the whole thing does still sound like a similar strawman of "cultural relativism". It only makes sense if we accept that genital mutilation is caused by "inferior culture", which remains to be seen.

Bilan

30th March 2010, 01:10

The point is that some far-right commentators link genital mutilation to some inferior "Islamic culture", and anyone who disagrees with that view is a "cultural relativist" who is trying to rationalise genital mutilation.

Yes, but obviously there is a major difference.
Firstly, "inferior culture". Just because you're not a cultural relativist does not mean you regard other cultures as "inferior", nor does it mean, you regard them as superior. It means you don't treat them all as if they were correct, or any, for that matter.
You have to recognise that, firstly, some people are just wrong, and secondly, you're probably one of them.

The far right doesn't do that: they assert that x culture is superior to y, and merely appeal to the moral stands of the society which gave birth to x.

This, however, is equally ridiculous. It is merely noting that in some respects, certain groups are treated less brutally in one society, and negating that others are much more oppressed.
It is merely trying to legitimise an oppressive culture by discrediting another oppressive culture.

I understand that that was not what WD was getting at, but the whole thing does still sound like a similar strawman of "cultural relativism". It only makes sense if we accept that genital mutilation is caused by "inferior culture", which remains to be seen.

No, genital mutilation is not caused by inferior culture. Genital mutilation is derived from a patriarchal structure, which subjects women to brutalised treatment from men; it is similarly derived from the dominance of religion over the given societies.

Inferiority v. superiority is irrelevant: it is a very primitive and chauvinistic way of analysing differences, and tends to apply a very vulgar "cost-and-benefit" analysis to two oppressive systems.

[Side note:
To make a judgment, you don't need to assert the superiority of one over the other. It is not incorrect to say that all cultures, all assertions of moral right and wrong are incorrect.
And I mean every one.
But by saying this, that doesn't mean there isn't a universal right and wrong, or universal truths. They may not have been found. ]

bcbm

30th March 2010, 01:22

Bilan

30th March 2010, 01:28

where are you getting your definition? cultural relativism is an idea in anthropology which argues that you cannot understand any practice without understanding the cultural conditions in which said practice exists. to use the example of genital mutilation, cultural relativism would actually be a useful tool in determining why the practice exists and how it can be combated within the cultures it exists in. the idea that there is no right or wrong is moral relativism.

I'm talking about it as a meta-ethical theory, not as a means of observing the way the world is. As far as descriptions go, it's spot on. As far as meta-ethical theories go, it's a heap of steaming dog shit.

which doctor

30th March 2010, 02:30

Also, I'm afraid I'm not unsympathetic to which doctors post. Genital mutilation is fucked, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for it. It is cruel, inhumane and degrading.
Which doctors post only highlighted a very 'cultural relativist' response to such an issue (though with a sort of liberal, south-park-parody twist to it)
I'm not sure how exactly you interpreted my (intentionally) provocative comment, but my point is that many in the social sciences justify really antiquated and misogynistic practices, in the name of cultural relativism and post-structuralism. Hence, if truth does not exist, all is valid.

So, I do share your hatred of 'cultural relativism' and I don't think the turn away from western civ. and the tradition of the enlightenment has been too productive.

Bilan

30th March 2010, 02:53

I'm not sure how exactly you interpreted my (intentionally) provocative comment, but my point is that many in the social sciences justify really antiquated and misogynistic practices, in the name of cultural relativism and post-structuralism. Hence, if truth does not exist, all is valid.

That's how I interpreted it. Perhaps I didn't articulate myself clearly.

Bilan

30th March 2010, 02:55

It's a meta-ethical idea. It begins with a description, and derives normative ideas from it. That's why it's bullshit.

No its not. It is a method.

It claims nothing is right or not. It just asserts what is. You cannot scientifically derive moral axioms or whatever, they are the deadweight of past generations on peoples brains.[/QUOTE]

EDIT: Something is seriously not right here. I didn't post this?
Dada, did you accidentally press "edit" instead of "quote"? :lol:

----

[Presumably Dada]
No its not. It is a method.
[/quote]

A method to do what? A method without an aim is not a method. Is it a method for describing what is, as in, saying literally that there are a number of moral truths in the world?
If that is the case, then it is true. There are a number of moral truths in the world, which are derived from the moral codes from a society, which are in turn derived from the 'culture', which in turn is in founded in the material relations of that society.
However, as a meta-ethical idea, cultural relativism asserts, then, that therefore no truth is or can be ever culturally independent.

That is wrong.

It claims nothing is right or not. It just asserts what is. You cannot scientifically derive moral axioms or whatever, they are the deadweight of past generations on peoples brains.

No, it doesn't claim that nothing is right or not. It claims that what is 'right' is culturally-dependent: it is determined within a given culture to be right or not. It then, in turn, asserts that this means that there cannot be (in the normative sense) a moral truth which is independent of culture.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "scientifically". A cultural-relativist observation is empiricist, logical, and is repeatable (by anyone). It uses the basic components of scientific analysis. That is what an observation ought to do if it has any validity.

However, as a normative idea, it does not have any validity. That is what i am talking about.
Cultural-relativism as a meta-ethical idea is bourgeois: it merely legitimises oppressive states; it smothers criticism of oppression of other societies and ones own (because, after all, our oppression is legitimate because it's part of our culture, so is our culture not equally right to be oppressive?); and thirdly presumes that culture is static, which is preposterous.

Again, this is meta-ethical, not anthropological observation.
The observation is correct, the meta-ethical idea is not.

RHIZOMES

30th March 2010, 03:16

Yes, well, that doesn't surprise me. Cultural relativism is essentially moral isolationism, and is, in turn, preposterous. It's a way of removing criticism and legitimising any form of social organisation because "all cultures are equally right", which is to say, it's liberal nonsense.
It presumes that when one criticises another culture that they are promoting "their" own, which isn't the case: just because you criticise the Iranian government doesn't mean you're promoting the New Zealand one. That is an unfounded presumption.

Well I was more accused of being an aloof whitey who values Western values in general above Muslim ones. Which is ridiculous since Western values are fucked in their own unique ways.

Â¿Que?

30th March 2010, 03:55

The problem with rejecting cultural relativism, as I implied earlier is the danger of exceptionalism. I don't propose it as anything inevitable, but just something to keep in mind, and maybe mention. Because, ultimately, a lot of people can't understand the difference between situational ethics (which cultural relativism is) and socially constructed or self identified cultural values. In other words, just because cultural relativism doesn't abide by a particular notion of truth, we can't produce any value judgment as to the cultural site in which the truth is derived.

Then again, a lot of the discussion seems to imply that what's right is also somehow true, which I think deserves to be scrutinized. , in any case, relativism in any form is simply a form of radical skepticism

And you'll notice I never denied that I posted a false dichotomy. I mean, this is the "Say What You Want" thread after all.

EDIT: Sorry if you missed an edit. I forgot to proofread before submitting.

Â¿Que?

30th March 2010, 04:04

You guys look like you had a really nice discussion about this cultural relativism. That's too bad I had to step out for a while.

black magick hustla

30th March 2010, 05:18

and the tradition of the enlightenment has been too productive.
Actually, this is the only "good thing" that comes from post structuralism. The realization that the western enlightment project is as full of aprioristic assumptions as monarchic ideas.

Jazzratt

30th March 2010, 15:24

Split and Moved from chit-chat so that I can now thank Bilan's posts (oh yeah and it's a bit intense for the say what you want thread).

which doctor

30th March 2010, 17:30

Actually, this is the only "good thing" that comes from post structuralism. The realization that the western enlightment project is as full of aprioristic assumptions as monarchic ideas.
I would disagree. The project of the enlightenment was one of the triumph of reason over nature. Its the idea that people, through their understanding of the world, can consciously take the helm of history. No one poses this question more acutely than Marx himself, who made his break with bourgeois philosophy to pursue its proletarian form not because of self-interest, but because he saw the element of truth within it. Where a bourgeois revolution differs from a proletarian one is, to paraphrase Lukacs, for the proletariat truth is the weapon that brings victory, and the more ruthless the truth, the greater the victory. Marxism is at once a product of the enlightenment, but also defines itself in opposition to previous enlightenment philosophers. In fact, I would consider the project of Marxism to be the project of completing the enlightenment

black magick hustla

31st March 2010, 00:14

I would disagree. The project of the enlightenment was one of the triumph of reason over nature.

Too bad nobody knows what is "reason", and why is it valid.

Now, I am not claiming a sort of ridiculous nihilism or radical subjectivity.I am simply demacrating what can be sensibly said through language and what is metaphysical. The earth orbits around the sun. The capital of the US is Washington Dc. However, "democracy". "freedom", "positivism", are not self-evident propositions. More importantly, people have murdered millions and millions because of this concepts which in reality, they have as much substance as saying that "premarital sex" is bad. No matter how "scientifi" the users of this words sound.

Anything that has an "ought" in it and is claimed to be based on objective principles is a fluke.

This does not mean I do not hold moral beliefs. I do not rationalize them though. I believe in a world where the sound of shackles and chains is not heard anymore. it is not something that can be correct or wrong in the same sense saying the sun orbits the earth is wrong.

Its the idea that people, through their understanding of the world, can consciously take the helm of history. No one poses this question more acutely than Marx himself, who made his break with bourgeois philosophy to pursue its proletarian form not because of self-interest, but because he saw the element of truth within it. Where a bourgeois revolution differs from a proletarian one is, to paraphrase Lukacs, for the proletariat truth is the weapon that brings victory, and the more ruthless the truth, the greater the victory. Marxism is at once a product of the enlightenment, but also defines itself in opposition to previous enlightenment philosophers. In fact, I would consider the project of Marxism to be the project of completing the enlightenmentMarxism is the negation of the enlightment. Nobody completed the negation of the enlightment better than when Bordiga called for revoluitionary totalitarianism against the democratic forces.

Glenn Beck

2nd April 2010, 19:19

*Implying cultural relativism in any way necessitates moral relativism*Urgh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Comparison_to_moral_relativism

counterblast

3rd April 2010, 06:45

Things you all should know:
Cultural relativism is fucking stupid. Fucking stupid. It is bourgeois nonsense, which merely veils it's sympathy for the oppressor in each nation state, city, etc. and tries to disguise it as political correctness. It is not. It is bourgeois nonsense.

Clearly the struggles of Saami people, American Indian people, Kazakh, tribal Afrikan people, and Bedoin people are the same as those in white industrialized societies!

And Das Kapital has a lot of relevance in societies based around oral tradition.

And clearlyyyyy these peoples' motivations for wanting to preserve their culture from outside forces like capitalists and communists who have historically attempted to colonize and destroy these folks egalitarian systems of living (most of which are FAR more communist than Soviet Russia could've ever hoped to be) for their own political capital is bourgeois.

gorillafuck

3rd April 2010, 17:31

Clearly the struggles of Saami people, American Indian people, Kazakh, tribal Afrikan people, and Bedoin people are the same as those in white industrialized societies!

And Das Kapital has a lot of relevance in societies based around oral tradition.

And clearlyyyyy these peoples' motivations for wanting to preserve their culture from outside forces like capitalists and communists who have historically attempted to colonize and destroy these folks egalitarian systems of living (most of which are FAR more communist than Soviet Russia could've ever hoped to be) for their own political capital is bourgeois.
Out of curiosity (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I'm only 50% sure I am), isn't saying that we should accept cultural traditions based on the fact that they are different and often oppressed cultures contradictory to your sig? Latin America, especially when Che Guevara was alive, is from what I hear traditionally a very "macho" region.

And it seems like some people are using different definitions of "cultural relativism".

Meridian

3rd April 2010, 19:59

Doesn't this belong in Philosophy?

black magick hustla

3rd April 2010, 20:01

And clearlyyyyy these peoples' motivations for wanting to preserve their culture from outside forces like capitalists and communists

I am always deeply skeptical of the claim from leftist nationalist of normal folk "protecting their culture". it seems to me most normal people don't really care about it as much and it is nationalist intellectuals in their groups that actually lead this movements.

Dean

3rd April 2010, 20:13

Cultural relativism as a moralistic attitude is indeed bullshit. There is nothing that justifies oppression of women, for instance, just because it is a cultural tendency.

Cultural relativism as a theoretical edifice is an obvious and critical feature of any rational inquiry into a society.

And a comment on culture itself. It does not exist as a universality, a monolith or a tendency with distinct borders. Rather, it is only expressed as individual practices and ideas which each have their own, distinct population of adherents.

That is to say, there is no singular Egyptian or Muslim culture with GM or body covering, but rather a cultural tendency of genital mutilation or veil wearing.

black magick hustla

3rd April 2010, 20:17

That is to say, there is no singular Egyptian or Muslim culture with GM or body covering, but rather a cultural tendency of genital mutilation or veil wearing.

You realize it is a really tiny minority in muslim culture that practice genital mutilation right?

counterblast

3rd April 2010, 21:26

Out of curiosity (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I'm only 50% sure I am), isn't saying that we should accept cultural traditions based on the fact that they are different and often oppressed cultures contradictory to your sig? Latin America, especially when Che Guevara was alive, is from what I hear traditionally a very "macho" region.

And it seems like some people are using different definitions of "cultural relativism".

It isn't up to us to accept or reject it.

It is up to the womyn, queers, lower classes in those cultures to accept or reject it. Acting in solidarity is one thing, but acting on an oppressed groups behalf because their social dilemma doesn't fit your liking, is an oppression all to itself.

Meridian

3rd April 2010, 21:56

You realize it is a really tiny minority in muslim culture that practice genital mutilation right?
I guess we are talking about female genital mutilation here. Weird how little focus it is on male genital mutilation, which seem to be accepted in the West. Why? A Google search for "genital mutilation" only gave result about the female kind, it wasn't until page 5 that it said anything about male mutilation. :confused:

Â¿Que?

4th April 2010, 02:04

I guess we are talking about female genital mutilation here. Weird how little focus it is on male genital mutilation, which seem to be accepted in the West. Why? A Google search for "genital mutilation" only gave result about the female kind, it wasn't until page 5 that it said anything about male mutilation. :confused:
Don't you know? Male mutilation is actually good hygiene and prevents cancer. Why wouldn't you want to mutilate yourself permanently (not to mention reduce your sexual pleasure) if it meant you could be with ladies without a rubber!

**dials phone to call doctor to get procedure done stat**

Bilan

4th April 2010, 03:18

Clearly the struggles of Saami people, American Indian people, Kazakh, tribal Afrikan people, and Bedoin people are the same as those in white industrialized societies!

Quote me where I said that, or at least, show how I implied that.

And Das Kapital has a lot of relevance in societies based around oral tradition.

What relevance has Das Kapital to this?

And clearlyyyyy these peoples' motivations for wanting to preserve their culture from outside forces like capitalists and communists who have historically attempted to colonize and destroy these folks egalitarian systems of living (most of which are FAR more communist than Soviet Russia could've ever hoped to be) for their own political capital is bourgeois.

1. I haven't sympathised, or promoted cultural imperialism. I have rejected the meta-ethical notion of cultural relativism, which insists that there because there are a number of different moral codes means that there is no truth which is culturally independent. That is what I have rejected. That is not the same as condoning cultural imperialism. That is simplistic crap.
2. There is not a 'more communist' anything. There is communism, and there isn't communism. Communism isn't small, self-sufficent communities. That is not communism.
3. What do you mean their own political capital is bourgeois? And what relevance has the obvious point that imperialists tend to be bourgeois, and that imperialism and capitalism are intrinsically linked. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm)
I haven't suggested otherwise. I have argued that cultural relativism, as a meta-ethical theory, is ridiculous.

cska

4th April 2010, 05:20

Could someone please change the title of this thread to moral relativism because that is what Bilan is talking about, not cultural relativism...

Bilan

8th April 2010, 03:40

Bilan

8th April 2010, 03:46

Urgh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Comparison_to_moral_relativism

Quoting relevant passages from Wiki shows this:

That is to say, descriptive relativists are not necessarily normative or meta-ethical relativists, though they might be. Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology.

Which is precisely what I have said.

Meta-ethical relativists:

Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference. They believe not only that, given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms; but further, that one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

However, a meta-ethical cultural relativist argues that "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" are determined by cultural standards, and that (as a normative idea), this is correct. This is different to descriptive (which is what anthropologists use) which says that this is the way things are.

Descriptive (non-meta ethical): There are lots of different moral ideas in the world, many of which are contradictory and are determined by cultural ideas.
This descriptive notion is true.

However, using a descriptive notion (such as the above) and turning it into a normative notion is illogical, and incorrect.

Normative (meta-ethical): There is no moral truth which is culturally independent, and there will never be.

This is incorrect. This is what is being spoken about.

Bilan

8th April 2010, 03:55

It isn't up to us to accept or reject it.

It is up to the womyn, queers, lower classes in those cultures to accept or reject it. Acting in solidarity is one thing, but acting on an oppressed groups behalf because their social dilemma doesn't fit your liking, is an oppression all to itself.

Irrelevant. No one has advocated cultural imperialism, nor any form of intervention from other nations.
You have made the most basic error of confusing the rejection of M-E cultural relativism with the advocation of cultural imperialism.
That is utterly false.

The rejection of M-E cultural relativism equates to nothing beyond that: the rejection of that meta-ethical notion.
It does not entail any specific consequences.

Furthermore, considering exactly what has been said by each of us who rejects it, what you're saying has no relevance.
It is also a negation of working class internationalism, and working class politics generally. Are the interests of workers everywhere diametrically opposed because of "their" culture? Is "culture" more a determining factor of whose side you're actually on, or does class?

What is being said here is that the presumption that culture is a bearer of truth is a means of stopping scrutiny of oppressive societies, and merely legitimises those structures of oppression. It also presumes that culture is static and unchanging; that it is permanent. Which is, of course, ridiculous. It in turn presumes that culture is the driving force of a society, which is again preposterous, as cultures reflect the ideas of a society and the structures which underpin it, not the other way around.

On top of all of this, you have legitimised cultural isolationism, and presumed that all cultures are a/ separate and beyond the scrutiny of others and b/ that the scrutiny of a particular culture/society entails the promotion of the one that one lives under.

Both of which are incorrect.

Glenn Beck

8th April 2010, 05:23

Quoting relevant passages from Wiki shows this:

Which is precisely what I have said.

Meta-ethical relativists:

However, a meta-ethical cultural relativist argues that "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" are determined by cultural standards, and that (as a normative idea), this is correct. This is different to descriptive (which is what anthropologists use) which says that this is the way things are.

Descriptive (non-meta ethical): There are lots of different moral ideas in the world, many of which are contradictory and are determined by cultural ideas.
This descriptive notion is true.

However, using a descriptive notion (such as the above) and turning it into a normative notion is illogical, and incorrect.

Normative (meta-ethical): There is no moral truth which is culturally independent, and there will never be.

This is incorrect. This is what is being spoken about.

Stop calling it cultural relativism, it's moral relativism. The relevant factor in moral relativism is the relativity of moral judgments, not the relativity of cultural understandings: if you are a moral relativist moral judgments are just as relative in the case of differing personal preferences as they are in the case of differing cultural preferences. Continuing to fail to make clear the distinction between the two concepts does nothing but harm to the discourse surrounding these issues.

cska

8th April 2010, 06:46

Ah, no. Moral relativism and Cultural Relativism are, first of all, not the same thing.
What I am talking about, as I have stated over, and over, and over, and over again is meta-ethical cultural relativism. This is not the same as moral relativism.

Quoting relevant passages from Wiki shows this:

Which is precisely what I have said.

Meta-ethical relativists:

However, a meta-ethical cultural relativist argues that "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" are determined by cultural standards, and that (as a normative idea), this is correct. This is different to descriptive (which is what anthropologists use) which says that this is the way things are.

Descriptive (non-meta ethical): There are lots of different moral ideas in the world, many of which are contradictory and are determined by cultural ideas.
This descriptive notion is true.

However, using a descriptive notion (such as the above) and turning it into a normative notion is illogical, and incorrect.

Normative (meta-ethical): There is no moral truth which is culturally independent, and there will never be.

This is incorrect. This is what is being spoken about.

You are claiming to talk about cultural relativism, and then you are quoting the article on moral relativism.

Cultural relativism involves specific epistemological and methodological claims. Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. This principle should not be confused with moral relativism.

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

Bilan

8th April 2010, 08:04

Stop calling it cultural relativism, it's moral relativism.

No, it is not just moral relativism. Moral relativism means that moral truths are relative to something. That "something", within meta-ethical cultural relativism is culture.
Obviously the critique of meta-ethical cultural relativism can be applied to moral relativism (broadly) in a different way. But a critique of moral relativism isn't going to specifically refer to the notion of "culture": a critique of meta-ethical cultural relativism is.

Which is what is being referred to here.

The relevant factor in moral relativism is the relativity of moral judgments, not the relativity of cultural understandings: if you are a moral relativist moral judgments are just as relative in the case of differing personal preferences as they are in the case of differing cultural preferences.

Yes, that is moral relativism. The fact that you haven't drawn a distinction has nothing to do with what i am saying, but only has to do with your own analysis (which relies on a misunderstanding).

Continuing to fail to make clear the distinction between the two concepts does nothing but harm to the discourse surrounding these issues.

Um...You just critiqued yourself. You have failed to make the distinction. The distinction I've made it patently clear: I am referring specifically to the meta-ethical notion that no moral truths are culturally independent, which is an intrinsic part of meta-ethical cultural relativism.

If I was referring to moral relativism simply, I would not be critiquing it's fetishising of culture now, would I?

Hiero

8th April 2010, 08:15

Who are the major proponents of this theory?

Don't be surprised if people imagine theories to create counter theories. Like imagining the other to empahise self.

And Das Kapital has a lot of relevance in societies based around oral tradition.

Any society with a mode of production, means of production and productive forces will find a relevance for Das Kapital.

Bilan

8th April 2010, 08:16

You are claiming to talk about cultural relativism, and then you are quoting the article on moral relativism.

I only referred to the wikipedia source because, apparently, that is a reliable source for you and Glenn Beck.

And if you read the quote properly:

Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

My bold.
What does that bold say? "Either in societal or in individual standards". The specific standard being referred to here is "cultural", that is why it is called meta-ethical cultural relativism. Because it is relative to culture.
You would not critique, broadly, moral relativism because it is relative to culture, because that does not make sense, as moral relativism can encompass different positions - i.e. more than just a culturally relativist notion.

If we're talking about moral relativism more broadly, we would critique it for different, broader reasons - not because of it's relativity to culture.

Your quote from the "Cultural relativism" wiki article only furthers this point:

Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate.

This is precisely the point I have made over, and over again. Not that cultural relativist analysis (in the descriptive, anthropological) is correct: it is an observation of what is.
There are people - which is why it states "is a matter of debate" - who advocate a meta-ethical notion because of this. These are the people I am referring to: not the people who use it as a descriptive method, but those who use it as a normative one.

Bilan

8th April 2010, 08:18

han: tide

MarxSchmarx

12th April 2010, 08:03

It is also a negation of working class internationalism, and working class politics generally. Are the interests of workers everywhere diametrically opposed because of "their" culture? Is "culture" more a determining factor of whose side you're actually on, or does class?

What is being said here is that the presumption that culture is a bearer of truth is a means of stopping scrutiny of oppressive societies, and merely legitimises those structures of oppression. It also presumes that culture is static and unchanging; that it is permanent. Which is, of course, ridiculous. It in turn presumes that culture is the driving force of a society, which is again preposterous, as cultures reflect the ideas of a society and the structures which underpin it, not the other way around.

You are correct that "culture" is a product of the society and the material bases.

I suggest that rather than negating working class internationalism, this fact, and the embracing of culture, strengthens it. Indeed, there is such a thing as a "working class culture" that transcends petty historically contingent distinctions by a large margin. For instance, most workers deal with the anxiety of being without a job. This anxiety is shared whether the worker is Muslim Buddhist Roman Catholic Jew whatever. And, I'd argue, it frames a bigger part of a working person's approach to life than all the other distinguishing features of cultures commonly considered, like religion and food and suchwhat.

Ultimately, because this working class culture is based on the material conditions in which working people find themselves, it is considerably deeper and in a very real sense more of a "true culture" than the accidents of history like language or music people listen to.

Dean

12th April 2010, 14:58

You realize it is a really tiny minority in muslim culture that practice genital mutilation right?

Yes, that was the whole point of my post. I didn't even link Islam and GM; if you'll notice, there are two distinct tendencies I am discussing in my post.

cska

12th April 2010, 18:02

Cultural relativism is never meta-ethical!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Comparison_to_moral_relativism

when the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid. Thus, people came to use the phrase "cultural relativism" erroneously to signify "moral relativism."
People generally understand moral relativism to mean that there are no absolute or universal moral standards.

Bilan

13th April 2010, 01:09

Cultural relativism is never meta-ethical!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Comparison_to_moral_relativism

You are just wrong. Suck it up.

Bilan

13th April 2010, 01:13

You are correct that "culture" is a product of the society and the material bases.

I suggest that rather than negating working class internationalism, this fact, and the embracing of culture, strengthens it. Indeed, there is such a thing as a "working class culture" that transcends petty historically contingent distinctions by a large margin. For instance, most workers deal with the anxiety of being without a job. This anxiety is shared whether the worker is Muslim Buddhist Roman Catholic Jew whatever. And, I'd argue, it frames a bigger part of a working person's approach to life than all the other distinguishing features of cultures commonly considered, like religion and food and suchwhat.

Ultimately, because this working class culture is based on the material conditions in which working people find themselves, it is considerably deeper and in a very real sense more of a "true culture" than the accidents of history like language or music people listen to.

Working class "culture" isn't, however, a basis for truth and falsity/right and wrong (as a meta-ethical theory would suggest). Working class culture isn't, I'd argue, a good thing, because it presupposes the existence of the working class.

However, I do see where you're coming from, but again, I'd like to point the difference here is between descriptive and normative.

I also don't think that this "culture" does much for working class internationalism. In a way, I suppose it kind of does - recognising that workers everywhere experience the same things under very similar circumstances.
But I don't find it particularly convincing is all.

MarxSchmarx

16th April 2010, 06:14

Working class "culture" isn't, however, a basis for truth and falsity/right and wrong (as a meta-ethical theory would suggest).

True, but this doesn't change how we act. After all, according to this "meta-ethical theory" nothing is really a basis for truth and falsity/right and wrong. But just because it is arbitrary doesn't mean it is unimportant or unworthy of action. For instance, my love for my brother is not a basis for right and wrong, but at the same time I vehemently reject and condemn anything that will ultimately harm him.

Same thing with working class culture. Sure, it is arbitrary and in fact historically contingent. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate it.

Working class culture isn't, I'd argue, a good thing, because it presupposes the existence of the working class.

Good point. Ultimately we seek the abolition of the working class, which entails the abolition of the working class culture.

However, I do see where you're coming from, but again, I'd like to point the difference here is between descriptive and normative.

I don't disagree, but I also think both are in some sense equally arbitrary anyway.

I also don't think that this "culture" does much for working class internationalism. In a way, I suppose it kind of does - recognising that workers everywhere experience the same things under very similar circumstances.
But I don't find it particularly convincing is all.

Ultimately individuals have to gain something from it. When an individual worker does not find these common tenets of workers particularly endearing (as in your case), then it doesn't speak to them and that's understandable. I suspect that many individuals do have something to gain from it, even if they don't know it.

Here's a short anecdote - I had a friend growing up who was from the country side of a developing country. We went to a rural village in my country for an extended school trip, and he immediately recognized a lot of the harvested crops in the field and started asking the people in the village when they harvested and such, and asked me to translate. As a city-dweller the only thing I had in common with the people in that village was our lingua franca, I knew nothing of their customs, and my friend from the foreign country who couldn't speak our language very well and who I translated for seemed to have much more knowledge and appreciation for the vilagers lives than I did. I remember my friend had a deeper respect for the people of my country when he appreciated that they lived very similar lives to his back in his country.

The point being that while sure, some people find these material, cultural links ephemeral, there are also people who appear to benefit and feel enriched and more connected from it at the same time.