Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 247 of 270 (437265)
11-29-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Silent H
11-27-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Back to regularly scheduled thread...
you seem convinced of both the social contract theory of government and culture (that all citizens contribute to society and the way it is built) and the idea that a tyrant can impose culture (a la Hitler, Mao, Stalin). these are completely incompatible ideas. but. if a tyrant can impose a cultural standard, how can you claim that any damaging social construct is chosen by the people and it is thus wrong for international persons or institutions to remove or work against it? if any higher social institution or person can install culture, how can you demonstrate that the people have actually chosen it and are not just victims of social coercion. if this is the case, how is social coercion to a less-damaging set of norms wrong?
and yes, i'm assuming a lot in that idea of "less-damaging," but lets go with "less-damaging" refers to "better for the general and individual good," such as less death, less physical damage, less starvation, more happy, warm families.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 7:59 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:32 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 249 of 270 (437329)
11-29-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Silent H
11-29-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Back to regularly scheduled thread...
I think impractical, or self-defeating might be better terms.
i don't think so. impractical would kind of insinuate that it can't be done or that it wouldn't have the intended outcome, which i don't think has anything to do with what you're saying. self-defeating is the same as the second option there.
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.
not being successful has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.
and i think you mentioned hitler in a different thread (or rather the nazi party).
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.
yes, but who is to say the previously existing culture wasn't there by imposition and coercion as well? this is what i was getting at with the question of whether it's wrong to seek to encourage cultural change. if the existing culture is only there through coercion (some would argue that all social cohesion exists through coercion) then what's wrong with displacing it?
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 really don't like moral relativism. you don't have to be religious to belief there really are things that are inherently right and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:32 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 6:19 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 263 of 270 (438214)
12-03-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by molbiogirl
12-02-2007 11:13 PM


Re: This is all getting very silly
he means that he can't imagine why anyone would think differently from him and why anyone might *want* to change the shape, structure, or appearance of their body parts and yet still be rational, sane, healthy individuals, and therefore, they all must be in need of prevention and psychological treatment. what he doesn't see is that the only reason fgm and circumcision are "wrong" is that these individuals generally are not given the chance to provide consent and they are not provided the necessary health care considerations like cleanliness and sterile instruments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 12-02-2007 11:13 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Rrhain, posted 12-06-2007 3:40 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 266 of 270 (438843)
12-06-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Rrhain
12-06-2007 3:40 AM


Re: This is all getting very silly
Question: What is my position on moral absolutes?
Question: What is my attitude regarding suicide?
Practical use of knowledge: Given the previous answers, how might it inform my expected attitude regarding genital mutilation?
clearly it doesn't matter because you have an irrational attachment to your genitalia.
Why would somebody cut off perfectly functioning, non-diseased genitalia?
you can't imagine why anyone would do it.
How does mutilation of the body not result in "direct and demonstrable harm"?
you consider it "mutilation" instead of a cosmetic choice.
Why do we not let people chop their arms off? We consider BIID to be a mental illness and we stop people from having their limbs amputated.
Why special pleading for the genitals?
you equate the desire to change the form of your genitals with a mental disorder.
and yet you expect me to believe this is informed by any opinion you may have on choice.
i don't know what the hell you think of suicide and i don't care. suicide has nothing to do with genitals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Rrhain, posted 12-06-2007 3:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2007 9:22 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024