Are all societies and cultures morally equal?

[SWJED]

Are all societies and cultures morally equal?

[Bob's World]

You realize, of course, that this is a very loaded question for a simple "yes" or "no" answer

If morality is how well one adheres to their professed values...well I think it has been well stated that "...all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..."

If morality is how I, from my position of cultural values assess another from his position of cultural values I get a biased relative answer to that same question.

That said, I think the answer is "no," but its complicated.

[jmm99]

IF and only IF all societies and cultures were exactly the same.

The same logic applies to the question: Are all persons morally equal ? - except that there, there is an exception (in my theology) because all persons are created morally equal. What happens after that is unique to each individual.

Since societies and cultures are ongoing collectives of persons, that theological exception, applicable to each of its members, cannot logically apply to those collective entities.

This has to be a Sunday morning question. :)

[John T. Fishel]

But here's another perspective. Extreme cultural relativism argues the moral equivalence of all cultures. Yet, some activities pursued by particular cultures are simply not acceptable and in the extreme risk the survival of the culture. There is a distinct religious subculture in the US called the Shakers. Essentially harmless, their belief that all sex is sinful stops them from procreating. They survive - barely - on converts and one day there won't be any converts; then their culture will die having committed cultural suicide. Their beliefs are simply self-destructive.

Full disclaimer: I grew up in a community where they once lived and now named for them, Shaker Hts. OH. All that is left is a name and several lakes they built by damming Doan Brook.

Cheers

JohnT

[Dayuhan]

some activities pursued by particular cultures are simply not acceptable and in the extreme risk the survival of the culture. There is a distinct religious subculture in the US called the Shakers. Essentially harmless, their belief that [B]all[B] sex is sinful stops them from procreating. They survive - barely - on converts and one day there won't be any converts; then their culture will die having committed cultural suicide. Their beliefs are simply self-destructive.


That would of course be immoral if we assume that survival is a moral imperative.

The question is only relevant if we have a consensus definition for the term "moral". If you believe that "morality" is an externally sourced absolute, then you will of course not believe that societies and cultures are morally equal, though among those who believe in externally sourced absolute morality there will be a good deal of disagreement about what exactly that moral code calls for. Every self-appointed mouthpiece for the absolute seems to have their own ideas on the subject.

If you believe that "morality" lies in actually following one's own professed beliefs, than we are probably all immoral, though perhaps unequally so.

[Entropy]

Maybe it is intentional, but the question is objectively meaningless without additional context since morality is closely tied to culture and both are inherently subjective. It's kind of like asking if all flavors of ice cream are equally good. In an abstract philosophical sense - maybe. In the real world with real people, not at all.

[slapout9]

That would of course be immoral if we assume that survival is a moral imperative.

The question is only relevant if we have a consensus definition for the term "moral". If you believe that "morality" is an externally sourced absolute, then you will of course not believe that societies and cultures are morally equal, though among those who believe in externally sourced absolute morality there will be a good deal of disagreement about what exactly that moral code calls for. Every self-appointed mouthpiece for the absolute seems to have their own ideas on the subject.

If you believe that "morality" lies in actually following one's own professed beliefs, than we are probably all immoral, though perhaps unequally so.


I think you about covered it all the way around....excellant answer!

[Charles Martel]

Saying that all cultures are morally equivalent is to not think about the underlying question at all. There are God-given rights that, if violated, make a culture less worthy than others that respect human rights. There can be different but equivalent cultures or societies, but to get there, they have to have respect for rights as their base.

[William F. Owen]

I'd be a bit careful of assuming that "morality" is context specific, or somehow relative. Some actions are clearly wrong.

For me, the big indicator is the actual practice of toleration that a society aspires to, and how they react when the toleration is not reciprocated. ...and I mean toleration, not respect.

[Entropy]

I'd be a bit careful of assuming that "morality" is context specific, or somehow relative. Some actions are clearly wrong.


Stating that "some actions are clearly wrong" is actually a subjective statement and highly influenced by context. While it's true there are a few foundations that almost all humans believe are wrong, they are still highly variable and dependent upon circumstance. For example, most would agree that murder is clearly wrong, but in many cases people will turn around and justify murder or even say that murder is a moral imperative given the proper context.

[William F. Owen]

While it's true there are a few foundations that almost all humans believe are wrong, they are still highly variable and dependent upon circumstance.

Very well aware. However there are basics on which most of the world's major religions have broad agreement on. Are these effected by context? Sure, but don't confuse actual morality with the cultural or social context in which it is applied, - thus the question - Are all societies and cultures morally equal? - that's something different from the moral norms common to most religions.

[Fuchs]

A culture has first and foremost the job of enabling a functioning, sustainable society. It needs to set social norms that prevent self-destruction.
These norms need to be feasible; their enforcement must not require more resources than are available to the society.

A Burqa serves the purpose of preventing violent conflict among men over women and of preventing that a women cheats, and her man leaves her or kills the bastard.

A criminal may lose a body part or his life - at very low cost to the society other than the loss of his productivity.


We achieve the same purposes of social and physical security by very different means; we employ full-time policemen, judges, attorneys, lawyers and wardens. Our system is simply unaffordable in almost all Third World societies (and they usually fail badly if they implement it without huge adjustments).

The critical variable for "resources" is the productivity of the agricultural sector. You can easily maintain a modern society if one farmer family feeds ten families, but not so if four farmer families feed five families. The fifth family is already busy with trading, fighting, mining and craftsmanship.

The Afghans substitute our resources/productivity with brutality of enforcement and a loss of freedom for prevention.

That's not necessarily likable, but it works. Their system would function and be sustainable.

We wouldn't want to use their system, and they couldn't employ our system/society/culture.


Meanwhile, our societies fail to ensure sustainability - a factor that makes them actually very bad societies.
We gamble that our societies can shift around and invent critical technologies in time to save us from our self-destructive economic behaviour (which is linked to our moral).


I'd say neither culture is advisable, but at least theirs could function for another thousand years if they don't irrigate their fields into salt deserts.

[Schmedlap]

I'm trying to think of an explanation to justify a "yes" response, but I can't find one. Suppose that it's possible. Even then, what are the odds?

[Entropy]

I'm trying to think of an explanation to justify a "yes" response, but I can't find one. Suppose that it's possible. Even then, what are the odds?

It seems to me the only possible way to honestly answer yes, besides in the abstract, is if one's personal philosophy is extreme relativism. Me? I refuse to answer yes or no.

[Ken White]

some bourbon. Y'all have fun... :D

[Majormarginal]

Coltures are not morally equal. To survive and not be vanquished is the goal.

[goesh]

- ah, a 'loaded' question from the get-go, maybe ken's last response should be, " I'm going to get some MORE bourbon."

Ontologically yes because I believe our species is inherently/genetically orientated towards creating and sharing and over the course of generations, the good created by one culture will equal, per capita, the good of another.

In the here-and-now, no and in particular for men who can and will fight, no enemy can be regarded as fully equal in all respects - close in many respects but they never get the cigar, particularily in the sense of being righteous in our offensive operations.

By the way, Ken, what brand do you drink?

[Dayuhan]

If it weren't early morning in my time zone I'd be tempted to look for the single malt stash...

If one assumes "equal" to mean "the same as", certainly societies and cultures are not morally equal.

I think it's fair to say that most moral codes evolved to manage the same problem: they are intended to manage behaviour and reduce internal conflict within a social group. Different societies evoloved in different circumstances and approached this problem in different ways.

Morality changes over time: at various times in the US, for example, it was considered morally acceptable to burn witches, keep slaves, and shoot native Americans. That's changed. For the most part we see this change as evolution, though some might argue that, again for example, the trend toward lenience in criminal punishment and tolerance of what would once have been called sexual immorality is a regression, not an evolution. Some would, of course, argue otherwise.

Different societies and their moral codes change at different paces and in different directions, another source of moral difference.

So yes, it's fair to say that cultures and societies are not morally equal. If you push that a step farther and bring in the notion that some are not just unequal - different - but that some are superior and inferior, or bring it a step farther still and say that the morally superior are entitled or required to impose their morality on the morally inferior.... then, in my view, you open a can of worms than might better stay shut.

Morality is not constant, so rationally it's not likely to be equal. Concepts of morality change over time, they vary among societies, and they are infinitely debated within societies. If we view a difference in views of morality as a legitimate reason to fight, we're gonna have a whole lot of fighting going on.

[Schmedlap]

If anyone stumbles upon the meaning of life, then please send me an email.

[John T. Fishel]

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.;)
Well, not exactly. But it is interesting that the Declaration is theoretically binding on all member states of the UN regardless of their culture, religion, or politics. And every member formally accepted its validity. So, if a state refuses to abide by the Declaration which it agreed to has it not violated its own code of morality?
But then my buddy who spent 5 years as a CIA case officer told me that the CIA polygraphers found Muslims the most difficult of subjects because "it wasn't a sin to lie to the infidel."

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

groups of any sort cannot be moral, immoral or amoral; ergo all are subject to discrimination on moral grounds by individuals based on the individuals perceptions. That implies that groups of individuals can have a collective perspective on the moral status of another group which may or may not be correct in the view of another group.

Thus I'm with Goesh.
- ah, a 'loaded' question from the get-go, maybe ken's last response should be, " I'm going to get some MORE bourbon." And I yam not loaded, thanksh you berry much. Iz that a mo-ral judge meant?
By the way, Ken, what brand do you drink?Anything but Melrose or Colonel Lee :D

Seriously, Blantons for sipping, Makers Mark for serious imbibition on cost grounds. Used to be I.W. Harper but the Japanese are buying all that...

[Uboat509]

if anyone stumbles upon the meaning of life, then please send me an email.

42

sfc w

[Entropy]

42

sfc w

Beat me to it!

[AmericanPride]

Since there's not even agreement on the origin, scope, nature, and purpose of morality, how can there be any answer? Even the idea that morality is or ought to be life-centered is done within a social context insofar that life and its various caveats are subject to varying ideas. Where do we even begin measuring the morality of another person, society, and their actions? In the 'strategic view' of a globalizing humanity, is religion even relevant or legitimate in defining morality? The problem IMO is not whether cultures are morally equal or not, but what obligations the answers may compel upon people. If cultures are morally equal, then what right does my country have in intervening (politically, legally, militarily, etc) in the social affairs (racism, genocide, etc) of another state?

[Ken White]

42 proof or even 42% / 84 proof fit to drink but whatever you're comfortable with...

[Ken White]

...then what right does my country have in intervening (politically, legally, militarily, etc) in the social affairs (racism, genocide, etc) of another state?It's all about politics -- and you cannot get much further away from morality than that.

[Entropy]

Ken, this may explain "42." (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080319121906AAAXLCz) :D

[Ken White]

42 proof stuff. You can't wiggle out. That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :D

[Starbuck]

How exactly do you quantify the value of a culture's morals?

Is there a universal standard by which we judge morals?

What are morals?



...Woah, I think I could make that into a haiku...

[Schmedlap]

How exactly do you quantify the value of a culture's morals?

Is there a universal standard by which we judge morals?

What are morals?

Also, what is culture? I was taught that culture = values, norms, and beliefs. It seems that values are the component that concern morality. But then, going back to your question, what are morals? The ultimate arbiter of issues in the online world - Wikipedia - points out that morality, in common usage, has three definitions and "the fact that there are at least three different usages of the term 'morality' ... has led to much confusion when that word is used in discussions. Because of that confusion, many thinkers are forced to spend a certain amount of time dealing with that confusion before they even begin to use the term 'morality' in their discussions." See the entry on Morality here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality).

Pondering a question where we weigh something that is poorly defined against some unclear standard reminds me of a political campaign. Half of the fight is to influence the debate over what is being argued and the other half is fighting to spin one's position on that vaguely defined issue. The fact that nobody can even agree upon what is being debated does not stop the debate from moving forward. After fighting it out for months on end, the voters are no less confused, but nonetheless come to a decision and cast an either-or vote. And then, every 2, 4, or 6 years, depending upon the office, they change their minds.

That's about as deeply philosophical as I get at 6:30 AM after waking up with a headache and preparing to head off to the gym.

[Entropy]

42 proof stuff. You can't wiggle out. That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :D

Instead of the ads for beautiful Afghan girls I usually get at this site, this pops up this morning:

[Starbuck]

Oh, come on, the chicks in those ads are the same no matter what country you visit from. That site just recycles pics of American chicks and, based on your IP, claims they're from Kandahar or Mosul or wherever.

Um, not that I know or anything.

Anyway, back on the topic of moral equality: I think we need to address the question of moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) before we can answer whether or not societies are morally equal.

[goesh]

Haiku?

Spring is bourbon time
Old Vets remember women had
and watch melting snow
:D

[marct]

Interesting, and unanswerable, question since morality itself is culturally constructed (at least in the definition I use). Trying to step outside of a culture defined morality leads us to statements like:


Saying that all cultures are morally equivalent is to not think about the underlying question at all. There are God-given rights that, if violated, make a culture less worthy than others that respect human rights. There can be different but equivalent cultures or societies, but to get there, they have to have respect for rights as their base.


Coltures are not morally equal. To survive and not be vanquished is the goal.

The first argument, from "religion", makes a totally invalid assumption about the universal existence of a) a "God" (which one?), and b) the existence of human rights as something other than a social construct. It argues that two non-empirical, non-perceptually existent, non-things can act as the scale upon which to grade cultures.

The second argument is more empirical, being based in a form of survival, but it suffers from one flaw: the assumption of pristine cultures. This is a typical example of Spencerian "Survival of the Fittest" rhetoric that assumes that survival in a specific form is the goal. Why? What is "fittest" changes with the environment and, therefore, any culture or society that does not change with the environment - where such changes lead to survival of individual bloodlines - is a failure. Survival cannot be measured in any absolute by using such artificial constructs as culture or society, only by looking at bloodlines.

Both of these arguments are in the same oeuvre as the extreme cultural relativist position. I agree with Ken.... Time for a drink :D!

[slapout9]

The first argument, from "religion", makes a totally invalid assumption about the universal existence of a) a "God" (which one?), and b) the existence of human rights as something other than a social construct. It argues that two non-empirical, non-perceptually existent, non-things can act as the scale upon which to grade cultures.



Some heavy duty stuff there;)

[marct]

Some heavy duty stuff there;)

Yup... probably PO'd a lot of people too :wry:. Actually, it came out of an exercise in trying to get people (students) to come up with a definition of "absolute truth" and asking them how they grounded it empirically such that they could convince other students. The "God-given rights" is the worst, since there is no universal agreement on either "God" or "rights"; lots of religious wars, genocides and fights over both of them. Just as an example, it is patently "obvious" that there is a God-given right to kill any female family member who is raped (just ask the Taliban).

[Starbuck]

Really, the question asks us to answer a number of sub-questions. First, we need to determine whether there is some sort of universal moral standard (moral relativism).

Having established that, then we need a quantifiable metric to determine how closely each society (monolitihic "society"?) measures up against one another. I would submit that this is probably not possible. Of course, this may be because I'm too lazy to try to figure it out :)

[AmericanPride]

marct,

Given that each person possess "life", would not "life" be an effective or sufficient foundation for establishing an absolute and universal morality? This is also different from survival, whereas survival of the fittest implies, and arguably requires, that the strong dominant the weak.

[Schmedlap]

... it came out of an exercise in trying to get people (students) to come up with a definition of "absolute truth" and asking them how they grounded it empirically such that they could convince other students. The "God-given rights" is the worst, since there is no universal agreement on either "God" or "rights"; lots of religious wars, genocides and fights over both of them.

As a non-anthropologist questioning an anthropologist on this issue, I feel kind of like a one-armed man stepping into a boxing match. But what the heck... I think you're blending two issues into one.

In waging wars, the "God-given rights" argument is the case that one rules by divine right - and, by extension, has divine justification for the war that the king/pope orders to be waged. That is an exercise of political power, legitimized (or attempted to be legitimized) by an appeal to a religious justification. A study of the Crusades, for example, reveals more about politics than religious fervor. Political leaders attempt to justify their decision and rally the people to the cause after the decision is made to fight. There is no logical reasoning by which the king concludes that "our religion and theirs are incompatible - we must fight!" Rather, he concludes that "I want control over that port/peninsula/mountain pass/city/etc."

Back in the day, people could be rallied with claims that they were defending the faith, when they were really mere instruments and fodder for a tyrant. Nowadays, with religion being less salient amongst western countries, we are rallied with patriotism, good vs bad, and being "pro-democracy." In non-western countries - particularly the mideast - it is still common for leaders to rally their people by appealing to religion, but is this really warfare over religion? When we invaded Iraq, Hussein attempted to claim that he was defending Islam. What did religion have to do with his degree of compliance with UN resolutions regarding inspection and verification that he dismantled his WMD program? He used religion, in vain, to rally his people to justify a political decision.

So, I think it confuses the issue to say that wars are fought over religion. Instead, I would say that cultures tend to form along largely religious lines - since culture is heavily influenced by core values and beliefs, which are often derived from religion. Eventually those cultures political interests' diverge and then conflict. They clash due to politics. And then the political leaders fall back on a common religious identity in an attempt to rally support for the political cause. If there were no human tendency to seek non-worldly explanations about our existence, cultures would form along some line other than religion, and cultures would still clash.

[John T. Fishel]

muddying the water with facts. We don' need no stinkin' facts!!!! Our opinions will do just fine, thank you very much.:p

Schmedlap, see above for how to deal with the darned ol' antropologist.;) Seriously, though, we also had "religious" conflict in N Ireland where the fight was really about political power and economic opportunity and social oppression. We also had the "religious" war in Bosnia between a bunch of folk who wrote their language in Cyrrillic and another bunch who wrote it in Roman; a bunch who celebrate Christmas on 25 Dec and a bunch who celbrate it 12 days later, and a buch who don't celebrate it at all! OBTW, thes bunches overlap:eek:

Cheers

JohnT

[AmericanPride]

Schmedlap,

I agree to a large extent, with the caveat that there are religious leaders who enter into politics or political movements with their religious ideal as the political aim. Often, these are radicals or revolutionaries who meet with little success (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade), but sometimes they are relatively successful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi). Populism, with its appeal to the people's passions IMO is the main driving force of introducing religion into politics, and on some occasions as developments radicalize the followers, religious zeal trumpeting political pragmatism.

[slapout9]

muddying the water with facts. We don' need no stinkin' facts!!!! Our opinions will do just fine, thank you very much.:p

JohnT


Nomination for SWC Quote of the week:)

[goesh]

Ken has put us on a real slippery slope. What about the jihadists that sought and had a good death via suicide bombing and not retreating from a fire fight when they could have? How much 'religious' inspiration does that inspire and how could that be measured? I recall as a young teen seeing on tv the buddhist monks immolating themselves in viet nam - how much did that really reverberate? I don't think religion can be easily dismissed from the equation. Look at our own cultural dynamics that unfold in a theatre of war - the band of brotherhood mind-set that develops and can't readily be explained by behaviorism or traditional cultural values. All notions of the flag, democracy, mom and pop back home and apple pie all go out the window in the first fire fight and something quasi spiritual IMO takes its place.

[Ken White]

All notions of the flag, democracy, mom and pop back home and apple pie all go out the window in the first fire fight and something quasi spiritual IMO takes its place.Hands down -- all the rest is late night Dorm chatter. ;)

[Schmedlap]

I don't think religion can be easily dismissed from the equation. Look at our own cultural dynamics that unfold in a theatre of war - the band of brotherhood mind-set that develops and can't readily be explained by behaviorism or traditional cultural values. All notions of the flag, democracy, mom and pop back home and apple pie all go out the window in the first fire fight and something quasi spiritual IMO takes its place.

I think most religions advocate values consistent with this trait, but I don't think the trait is derived from one's faith. We are pack animals. Canine teeth.

[marct]

Hi AP,


Given that each person possess "life", would not "life" be an effective or sufficient foundation for establishing an absolute and universal morality? This is also different from survival, whereas survival of the fittest implies, and arguably requires, that the strong dominant the weak.

It's a good idea, but I don't think it holds water - my cat is alive, the viruses currently attacking my wife are alive, so we would have to include all "life" and that, as any biologist will tell you, is a very tricky thing to define :wry:. How would we quantify "superiority" based on "life"? By sheer populatiion numbers? If so, bacteria win hands down :eek::D!

[marct]

Hi Schmedlap,


As a non-anthropologist questioning an anthropologist on this issue, I feel kind of like a one-armed man stepping into a boxing match. But what the heck... I think you're blending two issues into one.

Let me get back to you on this one in the morning.

Cheers,

Marc

[Greyhawk]

Comparing the poll results to the discussion.

[Abu Suleyman]

IF and only IF all societies and cultures were exactly the same.


Actually there are two ways that cultures could all be morally equal, the first is if they are all the same. The second is if there is actually no objective moral standard against which to judge them. You could say a third which is that the moral standard is either ambiguous enough or ambivalent enough that there is no way to judge them. While I see the distinction, I believe that is just weaseling out of the question.

Insofar as all cultures are not the same, and I accept a potential objective moral standard against which cultures could be judged, I must accept that all cultures are not morally equivalent. I can do so without positing that "my" culture is morally superior, or knowing or positing any possible morally superior culture.

[Rank amateur]

since morality itself is culturally constructed

Then they are morally equal. Whatever works for that culture is moral.

[Majormarginal]

If anyone stumbles upon the meaning of life, then please send me an email.It is a Monty Python movie.

[Majormarginal]

He wrote in "Rules for Radicals" Do these particular ends justify these particular means?

I'll read up on moral relativism.

I've gone from being concerned about much to being concerned for peace at my address. I don't have much use for absolute belief.

The older I get the more I believe that most things are scams. That might be an absolute belief.

Paradox? Dichotomy?

I believe we're not the Army that manifested destiny.

[Ron Humphrey]

Meaning is found in Life
And life is what you make of it.

Since it occurred to me that this meant I was the one responsible
for making my own life meaningful I liked it.

Considering that the someone just passed away recently after a very full and meaningful life I definitely think I'll stick with it

Sorry Marct, non of them facts here please:D

[Ron Humphrey]

I believe we're not the Army that manifested destiny.

would that be

[Kiwigrunt]

There is no meaning to life. Life is just what it is. Meaning is something we add to it, and to everything else. There is no meaning inherent to it.
Life probably was not meant to be ‘solved’ either, just meant to be lived. Problem is that many of us (including yours truly:() don’t always get that and spend a lifetime looking for it.
So Ron has probably got the right idea. If we can't help adding meaning to it anyway, we may as well choose a meaning that serves us. And there's the next challenge for many of us.......:wry:

[Starbuck]

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, we not only discuss counterinsurgency tactics, but also the meaning of life itself.

[Schmedlap]

I'm curious - since this thread was started by the moderator - what prompted this question?

[Starbuck]

I'm guessing it has something to do with the implications of trying to impose value "x" on a society that truly believes in value "y".

[marct]

I'm guessing it has something to do with the implications of trying to impose value "x" on a society that truly believes in value "y".

That would be my guess as well - at least in part. One of the things I've noticed is that it is always a good thing to challenge our own assumptions if for no other reason (and there are others ;)) than that we will not automatically block our perceptions. I remember reading an interview with a PRT person who said there was no social infrastructrure in Iraq - blithely ignoring the kinship based system that had been operating for millenia because it didn't match his preconceptions of what a social structure should be.

[John T. Fishel]

But there were others where the inteviewee had a good handle. Those interviews are good sources of support for a number of positions on a number of the threads here.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

Hi John,


But there were others where the inteviewee had a good handle. Those interviews are good sources of support for a number of positions on a number of the threads here.

Totally agree! One of the things in those interviews that I found fascinating was the, hmmm, let's call it "style of perceiving", that the other interviewuus had. Sometimes based on common experience (e.g. military to military), and other times based on a questioning attitude (e.g. "tell me what you think is wrong, why and how to fix it). They key difference was that the first person I mentioned "knew" his way of doing things was better, while the others wanted to solve the problems with the Iraqi's they were working with.

Cheers,

Marc