Relativism vs. Universal Morality

[Lardlad95]

One of my favorite books "Things Fall Apart" (by Chinua Achebe) shows the destruction of the Ibo society by Imperialist Europeans.

Now we all know the justification of Misionaries who came to "underdeveloped" nations back in the age of imperialism

They wanted to:

1. Bring the heathens to God

2. Bring them morality

and

3. Provide them with education.


Now we all know what realy happened is this:


1. They destroyed the Native Belief systems and customs

2. They brought them European Beliefs

3. THey brought them European education


So what is necassarily wrong with indoctrinating an indigenous culture with European custom? Well it all depends on whether or not you believe the European customs are right. What makes what the European beliefs anymore valid than an Ibo belief? The Ibo people seemed happy enough with their own customs, yet the Europeans were under the opinion that the European way was the correct way. So they came in and destroyed an entire culture and replaced it with a new system that was foriegn to the native people.

Who is to which society was correct? Or is any society correct?


Is European Education more valid than Ibo education? If so why is it?


IN your society you learn what you need to survive, so the Ibo learned how to farm yams and how to wrestle, and all of their customs. In Europe you went to school to learn so tht you could become a productive member of society.

Learning how to farm yams is about as useful to a European as learning the Kings of England is to someone from Iboland.


So what do you believe:

is Morality Relative to the culture?


If so then is exploiting the working class right in a certain culture? Or is murder right in a certain society? What about beating women? Or raping little girls?



or


Is there such a thing as Universal Morality?


If so then what is Universally moral? Who Decides what is universally moral? Has one Culture hit the nail on the head?



I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR DEBATE

[Nordic Rebel]

I was wondering the very same thing today on my philosophy lesson today. And I'm also bit divided on this issue because as you pointed out we have two choises none of wich are very likable.

First of all, if we accept that moral is relative to culture and all culteres are equal, we can no longer say that our way of equality and democracy is any better than the theocracy of Iran that oppresses women. And thus our view that communism is better than capitalism looses its justification, as we no longer can compare systems or cultures and say that one is better than the other. I'm pretty sure that is not the road we want to follow.

On the other hand we have the universal morals and the problems related to it. If we just say that our system is better than the others and just go and spread it in order to replace the old systems, how are we better than the imperialists who went and spread the European way to the "savages". the other problem with moral univeralism is: where do the morals come from. I think that most of us here agree that they weren't passed from god or other supernatural entity and if so where did they come from.

So I am confused because both systems have such severe flaws that I cannot make the choice between them. I'm also hoping that this will evolve in to an exelent conversation.

ps. English isn't my first lanquage so I apologise for any bad spelling or grammar.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Nordic [email protected] 20 2003, 01:00 PM
I was wondering the very same thing today on my philosophy lesson today. And I'm also bit divided on this issue because as you pointed out we have two choises none of wich are very likable.

First of all, if we accept that moral is relative to culture and all culteres are equal, we can no longer say that our way of equality and democracy is any better than the theocracy of Iran that oppresses women. And thus our view that communism is better than capitalism looses its justification, as we no longer can compare systems or cultures and say that one is better than the other. I'm pretty sure that is not the road we want to follow.

On the other hand we have the universal morals and the problems related to it. If we just say that our system is better than the others and just go and spread it in order to replace the old systems, how are we better than the imperialists who went and spread the European way to the "savages". the other problem with moral univeralism is: where do the morals come from. I think that most of us here agree that they weren't passed from god or other supernatural entity and if so where did they come from.

So I am confused because both systems have such severe flaws that I cannot make the choice between them. I'm also hoping that this will evolve in to an exelent conversation.

ps. English isn't my first lanquage so I apologise for any bad spelling or grammar.
your english is fine.


I agree with your assertions...however if these options are flawed...then what alternative is there?

[Nordic Rebel]

I was afraid that I used monstrous sentences that were too complicated but apparently that was not the case.

As for wich path we should go by we could follew utilitarist system. A friend of mine proposed this when we talked about this very problem. By calculating all of the aspects of society we might be able to prove that some systems are better for both the individual and the society as whole, and if so we could claim that our way is really the best and use the math to prove this. The problem with this system is how we prove that our calculations arecorrect. Its only marginaly easier than proving the existance of god wich as we know is impossible to do if one tries to abide all laws of logic.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Nordic [email protected] 21 2003, 08:13 AM
I was afraid that I used monstrous sentences that were too complicated but apparently that was not the case.

As for wich path we should go by we could follew utilitarist system. A friend of mine proposed this when we talked about this very problem. By calculating all of the aspects of society we might be able to prove that some systems are better for both the individual and the society as whole, and if so we could claim that our way is really the best and use the math to prove this. The problem with this system is how we prove that our calculations arecorrect. Its only marginaly easier than proving the existance of god wich as we know is impossible to do if one tries to abide all laws of logic.
But Utilitarianism is relative also...what makes most of the people happy in one system, wont make most of the people happy in another....Unless of course you are american because they/we believe that our system will make everyone happy.

Is there any way to create an objctive utilitarian society?

And yes how would we calculate the system?

[apathy maybe]

Is Morality Relative to the culture?

Yes.
Many cultures (esp before the tech we have no (i.e. a few thousand years ago)), banned certain things or forbid others because of the environment they lived in.
For example, Jews and Muslims both don't eat pig. Reason, it's unclean. One possible explanation for this is that pigs require a lot of water. In the Middle-East, where both these two religions originated, there wasn't a lot of water. To grew pig was wasteful thus forbidden.
Another example is that of pre-European Australia. For the Aboriginal people it was forbidden for a man and his wife to be from the same tribe. This encouraged diversity of genes and prevented inbreading.


Is there such a thing as Universal Morality?

No.
Because each culture is different. You may find that certain things (such as murder or canabalism with in the tribe) are banned universily. But then you find that canabalism is present in many pre-European societies (societies that have had contact with 'modern' Europeans, which then destroyed there way of life). There maybe one or two things that are universal, but I can't think of any.

[Nordic Rebel]

The way to calculate the universal utilitarist moral value is to put multipliers on things like happiness gained from tradition an happines gained from indvidual freedom. With these multipliers we take everything into consideration and put it in to perspective. But this still leaves the problem of how to calculate the moral value of any action or any society.

@ lardlad95: Actually I'm from Finland
@ apathy maybe: If morality is relative to culture then how can we claim that any system is better than any otyher?

[187]

"@ apathy maybe: If morality is relative to culture then how can we claim that any system is better than any otyher?"

You can't. It's still all relative.

Sorry for answering for am...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 05:01 AM
"@ apathy maybe: If morality is relative to culture then how can we claim that any system is better than any otyher?"

You can't. It's still all relative.

Sorry for answering for am...
Not a problem, that was the first answer that came to mind.

But we can claim a system is better then another based on our own personal morality. For instance the morality of buy buy buy and damn the consequences for the environment is in my mind aborent(sp?), but that's only 'cause I am a raving left wing greenitic.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

hey just a minute, how about those two French folks (GASP!!) Sartre and Beauvoir? And existentialism? The answer to your question lies somewhere in this concept....

And here it is: Existence Precedes Essence. There is no preset human essence (or nature), and thus there cannot be any universal values of behavior. Each individual, let alone each culture, is both 100% free and 100% responsible, and shapes what it means to be human for herself/himself.

Since everyone obviously has an obligation to choose what it means to be human for herself/himself, values are just DOOMED ATTEMPTS TO FLEE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHOOSE.

of course, it follows that those who choose to follow any culture's values in the world are both the mentally blind and the weak. But it is important instead to choose your own values based on who you perceive yourself to be and how you judge your own existence. However, this is not a totally individual operation, since humans are social creatures, and my existence now involves yours, doesn't it?

[Lardlad95]

You can post this if you want on your thread on morality.


So what do you believe:

is Morality Relative to the culture?


If so then is exploiting the working class right in a certain culture? Or is murder right in a certain society? What about beating women? Or raping little girls?

It is not a matter of “right” or “wrong”.

Marxism does not work off of morality, it works off of objective scientific analysis




or


Is there such a thing as Universal Morality?


If so then what is Universally moral? Who Decides what is universally moral? Has one Culture hit the nail on the head?



I believe in no universal morality. For you to assert NOW that the Romans having colleseum massacres as “wrong” or “evil”, is a reflection of your culture’s relative morality: if you were a Roman, you’d watch it, laugh and love it like you like it on television now.

And in the Agoutti society, they used to have mock battles in celebrations (hundreds dying), and then sodomize one another in a festival. We view this as revolting, they viewed it as moral and an honor to participate.


This is by Elijah Craig

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Mr Mojo Risin'@Oct 23 2003, 06:32 AM
hey just a minute, how about those two French folks (GASP!!) Sartre and Beauvoir? And existentialism? The answer to your question lies somewhere in this concept....

And here it is: Existence Precedes Essence. There is no preset human essence (or nature), and thus there cannot be any universal values of behavior. Each individual, let alone each culture, is both 100% free and 100% responsible, and shapes what it means to be human for herself/himself.

Since everyone obviously has an obligation to choose what it means to be human for herself/himself, values are just DOOMED ATTEMPTS TO FLEE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHOOSE.

of course, it follows that those who choose to follow any culture's values in the world are both the mentally blind and the weak. But it is important instead to choose your own values based on who you perceive yourself to be and how you judge your own existence. However, this is not a totally individual operation, since humans are social creatures, and my existence now involves yours, doesn't it?
Should everyman choose his own morals what if they conflict?

What if my moral views say that murder is ok and yours dont. Or if mine say it's ok to own slaves but yours dont? What do we do then. Don't we need a set of moral laws to rule a society?

[Mr Mojo Risin]

the problems you propose are essential. One way to get around them is to completely isolate people of one opinion from people with another, but to me, this is a last resort option. I will never support anything that forwards segregation or the building of walls between people.
I think that the way to deal with differences in opinion on matters such as these is *gasp* a somewhat libertarian approach. Like Hendrix says in "if 6 was 9" "Fall on mountains, just don't fall on me." So if someone thinks it is okay to kill people as sacrifice, and kills someone who doesn't think that way, it is wrong and he should be punished. But if that same person kills someone who believes it is okay to kill someone (and thus it is okay to be killed), then let them do that.

Admittedly, this is complex and utterly impossible to maintain in any society, but this is only an ideal. Mainly, this way of thinking addresses situations where imperial powers come from abroad to enforce moral judgement on other cultures. Usually, people from a given geographical area will share the same sorts of values and thus the problems you give are sometimes avoidable.

But what I have said is truly ideal, and would exist only in this pure state only in some utopian type of place, you know.

Also, people can move from one place to another if the moral conditions they believe in don't exist where they are at presently. This goes back to the whole social contract thing with socrates and locke.

[Soviet power supreme]

Is there such a thing as Universal Morality?

None of us can't know .Maybe there is, maybe not.

Is Morality Relative to the culture?

No i think it's relative to the invidual.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

and by the way, I too have read Achebe's Things Fall Apart, it is a great book, well-written on an ever-important subject. The ending is especially well written, as the entire body of the book and Okwonko's life is summarized by whitey as "The pacification of the savage tribes of the upper Niger."

[Bradyman]

Soviet Power Supreme, i have to disagree with your second statement: "No i think it's relative to the invidual."

I believe that people's morals are shaped by their enviornment, not by themselves. Therefore, the culture in which people are fostered determines their morality.

I would love to believe that there is a universal morality, but with the ever changing times it doesn't make sense. Perhaps in a thousand years, clothes would seem immoral and must be destroyed for some reason. To us now that seems really stupid, but to the people of the future it could seem obvious. Just how a thousand years ago, slavery seemed like a "normal" thing to do, whereas today, its obvious that its stupid.

I kind of believe that morality is being constantly added to, and the "universal morality" is always changing based on the culture, but it always reflects the past cultures. Just as a thousand years ago the people believed that killing was bad, so do we, but now we add a whole bunch of new morals to the list, such as abolishing slavery. That's just my oppinion.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Overall I agree with you ideas, but what is a culture's morality but the sum of individual moralities? My morality is heavily influenced by what I've seen in the past and also by what I see in others around me. I base this morality on what I personally believe it means to be human (existentialism), and thus my morality is both highly unique and highly involved with the moralities of other people.

If you say there is only cultural moral standards, then I fear that you mean that I, an American (Though not proud to be one) have the same moral standards of this foul, wretched nation as a whole, and thus strive only for the accumulation of wealth and power?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Mr Mojo Risin'@Oct 28 2003, 04:00 AM
Overall I agree with you ideas, but what is a culture's morality but the sum of individual moralities? My morality is heavily influenced by what I've seen in the past and also by what I see in others around me. I base this morality on what I personally believe it means to be human (existentialism), and thus my morality is both highly unique and highly involved with the moralities of other people.

If you say there is only cultural moral standards, then I fear that you mean that I, an American (Though not proud to be one) have the same moral standards of this foul, wretched nation as a whole, and thus strive only for the accumulation of wealth and power?
You do not share the morals of this nation?

So do you believe that murder is just?

Do you believe in Rape?

For the most part you do believe in the "morality" of this nation...despite the fact that alot of their laws are hollow

unless i"m mistaken

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Mr Mojo Risin'@Oct 28 2003, 01:25 AM
and by the way, I too have read Achebe's Things Fall Apart, it is a great book, well-written on an ever-important subject. The ending is especially well written, as the entire body of the book and Okwonko's life is summarized by whitey as "The pacification of the savage tribes of the upper Niger."
Yes the ending was my favorite part.

Actually I've figured out that Okonkwo's life was a metaphor for the history of the tribe.

They were once proud and strong like Okonkwo was, and slowly they began to fall apart just like OKonkwo's life, eventually the British destroyed their culture, just like they destroyed OKnkwo's life. His suicide represented the endin of the tribe as it once was and showed the oncoming control the British would have over the IBo