This comment was by Sasquatch on the post Moral Relativism vs. Cultural Relatism, which was sparked by a larger discussion on the post Headscarves and Men Holding Hands: Coming Out as a Cultural Relativist.
I read the article. I scanned the comments. And it is painfully obvious that people do not quite grasp the concept of relativism. It is not that there is no right and wrong. It is that there is no scientific, empirical, objective way to state that your “right” is more right than my “right”. Islamic countries that force women to wear potato sacks are genuinely, sincerely certain that they are holding the moral high ground. Most here seem to think these countries are not holding the moral high ground. But how do you objectively prove one or the other? You can’t. Those who oppose the potato sacks simply say it is wrong because they “feel” X, Y, and Z. They can’t say it’s wrong because it violates the laws of physics or some similar concrete fact.
And the same could be said of any other moral issue. There is never any way to say one route is “better” than another. There is no absolute law to use as a reference for measuring righteousness.
—
Photo: claudiobeck / flickr
That absolute absolutes do not appear within reach is hardly a reason for anything. We also do not know absolutely the spin or direction of quantum particles, but still have little problem avoiding not walking into walls everyday. There are very good measures we can use to establish the rightness or wrongness of an action, that it may not be 100% is not very meaningfull, nor does it make the search for ethical solutions a random exercise in futility.
trey. Thing is, here in the west, we judge the wonderfulness of other cultures on, among other things, authencity. Authencity may not provide greater happiness. It may actually work against it. FGM…charming local custom and besides….look, a squirrel!
How about judging on the which gives a higher quality of life, more widespread chances to fulfill one’s individual promise…….the one that allows the greater happiness to a greater percentage of it’s citizens/subjects.
That’s too bad, because that means there’s none.
There is a way to measure such things, though. Ask the victims. Much of the Middle East, from Iran to Jordan to Dubai to Iraq were far more liberal with regard to women before the Islamic nutcases took charge. The dress and activities of women then–slacks, skirts, jobs–were, presumably voluntary. IOW, that’s what they wanted to do. That they’re not now doing it must mean they’re under some kind of coercion.
Can we count their views? Or only the sincerely held moral beliefs of the misogynist imams and acid-throwing assholes?