Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Just popping in to say I happen to agree with your assessment, with just a few nitpicks. That statement is a bit extreme. Why wouldn't certain moral characteristics arise from evolutionary processes? They wouldn't have even had to have developed during our last stage of evolution.For example we may have "programs" that keep us wanting to stay together. That could have a survival benefit, and lead naturally to more social skills, including altruism as a learned mechanism for keeping things running smoothly.This is not to say it justifies them, but they aren't COUNTER to such mechanisms. That would require that they are clearly counterproductive to reproduction. Regardless of why its practical, it would still be practical. I agree this is all atheists have, beyond describing their own aesthetic tastes. I don't see this as a fault, just a definition.It may be true that I could just as easily kill someone as help them, but as a human I have habits and a nature. I generally just don't want to kill someone, and would want to help. Those with the reverse tend to get weeded out relatively quickly... though not always.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I meant using the term extensively. The Wiki page used it all over the place for explaining what political events were happening in the world. This was to indicate that it can be useful and is real.As it happens you claimed it was never used. You searched and it did not exist. So I found it being used and what do you say? Oh yeah you merely assert that it has no connection to how I was using it.Well I can't fight that logic. You just tell me what I mean and what they mean, and that the two are different. Here's a good example... Did I say this? Where did I say this? Where did my cite say this? I told you how I was using it and the articles used it the way I did.What is true is that monocultural proponents, such as seen in the Netherlands DO argue that cultures SHOULD be that way. Thus for example there is a singular Dutch culture that has specific characteristics that should not change, and variations within weeded down.I never said they were closed, never said they do not change. It is people trying to build that facade through law that I am arguing against.By the way I did look into the AAA thingy, and it does seem that in 1999 they made a pretty dramatic policy change. That's sad for me to see (like the American Psych orgs) as it is not scientific, however it does not necessarily hold for all Anthropologists or all anthropology as seen in some of the papers like Bell's. Boy I hope they change back from that.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Says the person who keeps quote-mining, misreading documents, telling me what my position is, what the definition of words I am using are, making claims that are clearly falsified, and never admitting when I answer a question?Yeah, my opinion of you is a complete waste of time. Shall we end discussion?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You say the above and then... This is completely contradictory. And where exactly did you find their BS claim? You say this, they do not and the text is clear. They do not identify the equations you just made. Can a woman not have enjoyment without orgasm? Can one not rate enjoyment without rating orgasm? Could in fact women have orgasms but still not feel enjoyment (perhaps due to pain before or after)?What's more they start with a statement of intuitive connection, they even call it "suggests", followed by studies so far, followed by HOWEVER, to end in a caveat. I knew you weren't referring to the WHO document. You said I only pulled one sentence from the article. Its in post #142 and goes as follows...The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. Okonofu FE, Larsen U, Oronsaye F, Snow RC, Slanger TE. BJOG (2002 or 3) What I highlighted was the entire conclusion area. That does not read that way to me... it appears to read that they used it to show if/how FGM had effected sexual response. You make no mention of their use of other self-reporting data.If you have more, perhaps you should share it. WTF? So unless I keep finding more studies all the rest are assumed to be against the ones I cited? That's ridiculous!As it is I did start looking through them and kept finding stats on health issues unrelated to sex, and others simply documenting incidence of the practice. That's why listing numbers of studies doesn't mean anything. OMG!!!! I didn't say Bell didn't use the stat. I thought the question you had is where she was getting that figure. Hence I mentioned that your WHO thingy used the same figure.Now you're trying to manufacture evasiveness on my part? To which you say... No she is not, she is making a point that leads to a conclusion right after the portion you quotemined above. As is, you should be able to understand what she is saying, but here it is in full... NOW do you get it? They aren't all synonymous with sexual health. Really are you going to claim she meant anesthetics, sterile equipment, and a trained surgeon will help with short term SEXUAL health issues? Call me dishonest and an idjit, but at least I don't quote mine or have the massive reading comprehension problems you seem to have.And it was pretty hokey to quote from something else entirely to try to prove your point of what she said. You'd have been better off looking at the source. Yeah, so you say... but then again, I can actually read her article. Look above. The meaning is clearly NOT sexual health. She is arguing that the WHO's focus is that despite protestations to general health. The final zing being that when they have chances to help women's general health they decline to do so.Again, that was a pretty hokey stunt. Uh, actually if you want to follow it all the way back, it started with crash asserting that individual rights were universal. I brought that question here for people who maintain that position, to argue it.As it stands I cannot prove a negative. Watch me make another assertion... I don't know that Gods exist. Can I prove that? No. It is up to people who believe in them to prove that. I don't think there are absolute morals. Oops, there I go again. Can I prove that? No. I can explain that I've seen no evidence for it, and that's why I doubt it. It would be up to absolute moralists to make their case.If you have something by all means make a case. If you think the default of no evidence against the universality of individual rights, IS the universality of individual rights, then you've got a lot of company to work things out with. Start with the Xians moral absolutists. Or maybe the Islamic ones.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yes, that's right. Why is that funny? You said the term was useless and not real. I had shown where it was used, extensively, to discuss political trends. Hence it was useful and real.What difference does it make if its on a webpage? And as it happens I did find some uses of it in literature... which you claimed never existed. Nice racist banter, but uh... what's with the above? Yeah, YOU used words that when read suggest I said X. But that's the problem, I didn't say X. All of the examples I gave you to help you understand what I meant did not say X. So... This is your problem, not mine.It does appear rational debate has ended with you. Have fun with your pals.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Lets clean up and refocus debate on the thread's topic. I think NJ started the job, but I'd like to shift it it even further along.To start with, no more discussions on the nature of genital mutilation (f or m). While interesting, that should be moved to a different thread. For sake of argument we can simply assume whatever current cultural practice comes under scrutiny, defies a commonly held concept of "human right" (defined from US legal standard).Recapping...Monoculture: The term monocultural refers to something which is related to a single culture, as opposed to multicultural which relates to many cultures.It is a contextual term. For example, a person who grew up in one nation, with a specific ethnic background traditionally associated with that nation's history could be termed monocultural, as opposed to someone with a mixed national/ethnic heritage could be called bicultural, or multicultural. Used another way, an institution or community can be defined as monocultural if it happens to have a singular dominant (common, majority) set of beliefs/values/practices, as opposed to multicultural institutions and communities containing many sets of relatively equal value/practice. As a specific example, an Amish community or Jewish Kibbutz would generally by monocultural, and a university's international dormitory generally multicultural.The term is also a definition of current state, and does not inherently imply or assume an essential, static nature of any culture. For example Amish traditions and practices can change over time as they encounter other cultures, or by increased activity/popularity of internal subcultures. Indeed, if Amish communities began opening themselves to other ethnic groups/traditions, sharing schools and such, they could eventually become defined as multicultural.However, some people DO view certain social entities as having an essential nature. Many of these demand specific cultural "traditions" be made/kept majority over other cultures (or subcultures) and remain static (immune to change) by enforcement mechanisms.One example of such a group were German National Socialists, who believed in an Aryan culture that has specific characteristics, which their communities must protect and enhance (namely by removing all other cultures/subcultures). A more recent example is the Netherlands gov't, which decided that there is a "dutch culture" with specific characteristics that define it and should be practiced to keep it the same over time (through strict immigration policies, and forced indoctrination of subcultures). This latter case was a flip from an overtly multicultural policy, to one of monoculturalism.My position is that cultures are not static, and do not have essential natures. It is a fiction to try to trap them in amber, so to speak, with monocultural policies. That said, I also do not believe that the fluid nature of cultures creates an argument that they can or should be actively changed by outside parties through coercive tactics, to suit their own interests.I feel that the concept of individual rights has been inflated from a fluid legal/political concept within specific nations, to a binding moral concept that must be held over all people regardless of nation. In fact, I would argue such movements involve the fabrication of a fictional culture (a borderless global human culture) with an essential, static nature. To say that human rights mean X and are bound to people by their inherent humanity, and regardless of their local cultural standards, is to advocate for stasis in the concept of what human rights are.Perhaps I am wrong?Chiro set out an interesting position as I hope I understood it, and may even work with Mod's position. While I originally used the word "practical" to describe his interpretation of human rights, perhaps the better word was "internalized". That is that one feels strongly in such a way and will work accordingly. That is opposed to saying I must work this way because an external reality mandates that I do such, justifies my thoughts/actions, and applies to everyone else.Brenna, and this might work for Chiro and Mod, set out that international activity is the building of a consensual model of human rights. That it derives a power from the fact that nations are working together to build it. Did I get that right, brenna?These are interesting, and while I understand internalized concepts of individual rights, I feel there is an overstatement regarding international declarations and laws. These are all legal concepts, which themselves can change over time, and hold different meanings for different groups which agree to them. That makes it strange for me to hear talk of their results being universal (applicable to all), or inherent to anyone by virtue of being human.Aren't they just legal agreements (rather than findings) regarding individual rights? That is to say a practical statement of how we are planning on treating them, not that they have a reality in and of themselves (like the diplomats are oracles slowly divining the ultimate shape of reality/morality)? Couldn't these beliefs just as easily change as society in the future changes? If not, why not?And this gets to NJ. If there is an idea that the work of nations building consensus are creating or uncovering an inherent moral/legal reality that binds all humans, where does this come from? If such a universal exists, doesn't that explictly endorse an absolute morality? If that is true, doesn't that argue for some separate purpose for humans in nature? After all no other animals have such a thing. If it is not merely a temporal human construct, and indeed is inherent to human action, doesn't that suggest actions by Gods?I concur with NJ, that if there are universal (absolute, pertaining to all) moral truths then they have to find legitimacy in Gods, not the works of men.Whew... so you see why this idea of individual rights as an external reality, which can and must be applied to all other cultures becomes problematic for me. I feel such grandiose statements regarding individual rights cannot be logically maintained without reference to gods (that is it is inconsistent with atheism), and further that it creates a fictional community (a global human culture) with a singular moral code applicable to all (once the diplomats get it all worked out), and enforced by legal mechanisms.As an example of coercion on the local level, in support of "human rights", I list my NYTime article again. If that is grassroots consensus building on norms, then what are they but the result of cultural imperialism?Edited by Silent H, : findings

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

In case you missed it, I created post #225 to reset the thread back on topic. I think where you are going is part of the discussion I had intended, though a bit on the edge. Check to see how I view it fitting in. Not to speak for rrhain, but I don't think they are necessarily antonyms. I think by arbitrary he meant that it could have been anything, that there was no one particular set of rules they had to end up with. In any case, if he didn't mean that, I would have.I find ethical theories, morality, cultures, and laws arbitrary in that they could be just about anything. And indeed that is what we have found throughout history. Even the golden rule hasn't existed in every society, though indeed it is common to many. I love to see the varied way humans can decide to live.That said, the "rules" are all socially constructed, so the people in those communities had intent and purpose while making them. Edited by Silent H, : making

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Brenna, my comment was a single instance three word toss off on her amos and andy routine insult (didn't you read the post?). Ironically your comment here would be more suited to her claim... and her reply.Nothing I said after that comment had anything to do with racism. In fact, I reset debate on the actual thread topic in post 225.Its now 100% FGM free!

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ironically I have minored in sociology (which is not divorced from the same understandings of Anthro, especially regarding culture), and have worked at the international dept of a US gov't agency. So to have you claim I have it all wrong and am not listening to experts falls a bit flat. It sounds like convenient assertion.Why don't you describe what the role of culture and politics are? For example was the National Socialist party not attempting to create and maintain a dominant Aryan culture within Germany? If not, what would you describe their political activity was, as applied to the various cultures within Germany?The same could be asked regarding Maoism in China, or the current Dutch gov't advocating a single dutch culture (this is their claim). Indeed the Dutch PM, while acting as the European president tried to expand this by holding talks to determine what the European culture is. Perhaps they have it wrong, but that does not change what they are attempting to do.If you are an expert, it seems to me it would be easier to discuss the issue, than hand wave it away with rank personal insults. I mean in the science threads much more complex issues are broken down for laymen who clearly have several subjects totally whacked.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is why you aren't getting answers from me. You need to show an ability to withhold personal attacks.I generally don't participate in debates on subjects I have no experience (I never claimed expertise here... she did). I do have a broad range of educational and work experience. Contrary to your claim that I do this on every subject, I have specifically laid out what they are in the past, and they have not changed. Also, I only have one degree (though I have full course credit for a second undergrad in Chem).One good example of a non-expertise, is biology. Since you began posting you went from a level I'd have considered below my own, to what appears to be something well, well beyond. I assume its connected with your major which I've already congratulated you on. Likewise I would never try to dispute... instead I would listen... to cavediver expand a point on physics.In this thread I have never tried to shut down discussion based on my background at all, or appealed to it as a reason for anyone to agree with me. In all cases, I have been responding to others who have tried to shut down discussion based on their supposed expertise. I'm saying their claims that they are the all knowing arbiters, and so what they say is true, is a bit suspect, even if they do have the education (which I don't dispute).If a person is an expert, they may still be wrong about something. And if they are right, their expertise ought to produce a more productive answer than personal insults.Edited by Silent H, : and to

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm not sure if you'll see this reply or the one in the Obama thread first. I ended discussion between us on all serious topics until you can agree to be civil and roundly stop your personal attacks... both in the asking of a question, and in answering.I ended this after your behavior in another thread, and that was before I saw your first post in this thread. I didn't have a problem with your first one here and a couple others (which may be the ones you just cited). It doesn't matter. We are at an end on debating serious topics until you can stop the attacks altogether.You should now understand exactly what is happening. I will not discuss this again. If you feel I'm dishonest then I don't see why you'd want to start talking to me at all. Why not institute the same policy toward me?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

When the question was can we agree to be civil, that answer is an unqualified no.I will discuss anything trivial as I feel like it. But nothing serious. That's how it will go. Do you have any more questions?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Rather than continuing to ruin two threads, how about we move this to the thread that's about me? You'll find a statement by me there in a few minutes or so...

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay, the bar's been cleared. The chairs reset, the broken glass swept from the floor.The issue (explained in greater detail in #1, and further focused in #225) is whether the concept of "human rights" is being used to promote a form of ethnocentric imperialism, or if they represent a set of moral principles that transcend cultural or national beliefs?The question to my mind starts with whether these rights are merely temporal agreements made by institutions and organizations? If so then claims that these rights are inherent to all humans is an overstatement of their nature, and they cannot be used to justify condemning particular cultural practices of different nations as intrinsically "wrong" or "unjust".If they are not merely temporal agreements, and are transcendental, then isn't that arguing for an absolute morality? How do international agreements argue for this transcendence? Wouldn't this require arguments for Gods?And regardless of their nature, are their limits to the type of methods used to gain compliance with these legal statutes? Is there a problem for less powerful nations, or more "primitive" cultures, when more powerful nations have greater leveraging tools?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Cool, see we just had a misunderstanding.I subscribe to a sort of practical social contract theory. And you are right that a tyrant can't impose a culture. It takes the willingness of others to go along.You misunderstood my examples. Although I did mention Mao, I never said Hitler, and I gave a specific recent example of a democratic gov't instituting a cultural policy from a grassroots movement.My position is that groups ATTEMPT to impose a culture. That is not the same thing as actually achieving such a thing... other than getting a visual (outward) simulation of such.In this quest they often (I might argue always) and up using coercion to get people to submit to this goal. Hence it is not an "honest" change in opinion, but rather a manufactured obedience. I'm not sure if I got this correct. But I'm assuming you are asking how can I claim it is wrong for int'l efforts to change a particular nation's culture... when a tyrant imposes one... if I'm not for such a thing in general?Actually, I am against int'l efforts to end a culture imposed by a tyrant, or a society, on a nation. Or more specifically I am against specific methods for such int'l efforts.This is because the argument that we should be able to, creates the possibility for a much larger tyrant, whether an individual or a group. By limiting legitimate int'l efforts against internal practices of nations, limits the damage of any "harmful" practices to that nation. Well I think in some cases it can be demonstrated that people are coerced, rather than having chosen to accept the imposed culture. But for sake of argument let's say we never can.To my mind, the greater the level (size or method) of coercion allowed the worse it stands for individuals everywhere. The question of "less-damaging" is itself subjective.Even using your own criteria, to some allowing homosexuality to exist, or women to have a say in public life, is a "more damaging" norm, than to proscribe such activities. I personally would not hold that, but that does not make my position more valid. They are each statements of taste (and assumption of outcome). What I don't want is to empower the idea that that other person can make the same argument you just made to justify crushing my community/nation/beliefs.I don't think "wrong" is the best term to describe my position. I think impractical, or self-defeating might be better terms.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard