This comment was from RLN on the post Headscarves and Men Holding Hands: Coming Out as a Cultural Relativist
In philosophical circles, “moral relativism” is a theory that entails that if you think “We should be tolerant of other people” and I think “We should bomb the sh*t out of everyone that we feel like” then we can both right and so there is nothing that can settle the difference. Moral relativism doesn’t require any sort of policy on tolerance since anyone can simply chose to value tolerance or not and furthermore there can’t be any reasons for preferring one set of value claims to another (except maybe “my value claims are better because they are mine”). But once we take on board the very plausible claim that “I can give you good reasons for being more tolerant” then we have already taken on board a pretty significant ethical stance. Your use of the term “cultural relativism” might just be a case where the same word is used to mean two completely different concepts. Again, no matter what the subject matter, philosophers generally think that something is ‘relative’ if and only if a) two agents can disagree about some fact about the world b) mean the same thing and c) there is nothing that would settle the matter. In the case of cultural norms, I’m not sure why this would hold. If you tell me that “In India, women wear red to wedding ceremonies to signify wealth” and I say “In India, women wear red to wedding ceremonies to signify harlotry”, I would probably be the one in the wrong and an anthropologist who actually did some research could give me some good reasons for this assessment. I don’t think this is how you are using the term ‘relativism’.
About the Editors
Unfortunately, this is completely true. In dark moments, MRAs like to tell each other the comforting lie that “every civil rights movement in history has succeeded in the end.” The truth is that history only remembers the civil rights movements that succeed. The failed efforts, along with the people who fought them, are forgotten.
Given the vast power differential between feminists and MRAs, the likelihood is that the darkness will continue to grow until the lives of men, boys, and fathers are forever shrouded by it.
Hiya…so I’m not sure how MRAs and remembered civil rights movements have to do with moral vs cultural relativism. I’m not being snarky; I just don’t see the connection.
There is no absolute truth. There is not even an umbrella of general principles underneath which a set of somewhat related truths can exist. Anything goes. History teaches this again and again. Most people chose to ignore this lesson and embrace comforting lies about self-correcting systems or other religious or quasi-religious fictions.
The brutality of the Gestapo, the Kim dynasty, and countless others lies in all of us.
What does this have to do with men, boys and fathers?
Feminism is the most powerful political lobby in human history. Feminism is also a poison dagger pointed at the hearts of men, boys, and fathers.
Barring a miracle, the result is innevitable. A future of indenture, bondage, servitude, and increasing dehumanization is all but certain for men, boys, and fathers. As an MRA I fight, but I have no illusions. This battle is all but lost.
If you want to understand this from a third party perspective, I challenge you to examine the systematic dehumanization efforts of various groups in history — and find the one example that did NOT eventually lead to an extermination campaign.
I know that extermination is the farthest thing from the minds of most feminists. But every generation of feminists is more powerful, more radical, more heartless, more brutal, more filled with hate, and more devoid of compassion. Already, in places like “radfem hub”, feminsits openly discuss the detailed mechanisms for the extermination of men, boys, and fathers.
I’d actually posit that the media, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries are more powerful, but that’s just me.
I view sites like radfemhub as seriously as I’d view spearhead or commenters there that I’ve seen promote VR women and eliminating the need for live ones, mechanical wombs, moving half of the genders across the US, or plans to make sure promiscuous women are forced into sex work. I’ve seen comments like that on various radical men’s blogs. Are there really plans in the works to eradicate females? I doubt it. Are there really plans to eradicate men? I doubt that too.
I don’t take either radical element seriously in the sense that I think there are plans. I see no plans. I think it’s dramatics and hyperbole out of some intense fear and anger.
Now issues like ADHD meds? I take that seriously. Circumcision for either sex? I take seriously. Custody issues? I take seriously. Support and centers for men who have suffered assault and sexual violence? I take that seriously. Disproportionate amounts of men of color in jails? Yes. Bullying and emotional violence on LGBT kids (men) yes.
Women (or men) advocating for the extermination of a gender? I do not believe there are plans anywhere in the US to exterminate gender and I’d fight to the death to highlight the lunacy of such a plan.
I will be fully willing to continue to review links from both rad sites, but I don’t think anyone there is actually in any power to make that happen. This is not a world I want to live in where genders are eradicated.
I mean look at countries where girl babies are being aborted (China, India) based on sonograms. I don’t want that nor would I stand for the opposite.
Ah okay I understand what you’re saying now, Anthony. Thank you for explaining. I’d like to say I pretty much agree with Julie here.
I would argue there’s a difference between absolute relativism and practical relativism.
Absolute relativism means there is no objective standard and no place to stand on common ground, and it really is your opinion versus my opinion and everything is totally equally valid. Everything is true or everything is false, and there is no objective reality independent of perceptions. If that’s true, and we established a society based on that principle, then it would be hellish. (If nothing really is true, then there’s really no such thing as murder, rape, genocide, socks with sandals, etc. That means the Holocaust never happened, and there’s no basis for criticizing anyone about anything. You say war crimes happened, but that’s just your opinion.)
Practical relativism means two people who disagree can, for the sake of discussion, agree on some basic principles. It means that there may be more than one valid way to interpret something, even more than one valid moral interpretation. It doesn’t mean that they’re equivalent, just that having an open mind can be constructive. It means there’s some reality somewhere that exists, even if we can’t quite find it in its pure form.
Another way out of the trap is to look at another’s behavior in light of what they claim their moral code is. Maybe it’s inappropriate under relativism to judge Islamist suicide bombing based on modern Western liberal concepts, but it’s perfectly fair under moral relativism to judge it based on the moral code that Islamist extremists claims to fight for. Is the behavior consistent with what those people claim as their ideals? (Islam has quite a bit to say about protecting innocent life, treating others with respect, not spreading the faith through violence, and praise for Jews and Christians. Suicide bombing may be compatible with some aspects, but not all of them.) Moral relativism does allow you to look at whether a behavior is consistent with those people’s own beliefs.
P.S. This is illustrated quite well for me in comic strip form at:
http://www.sidewalkbubblegum.com/you%E2%80%99re-standing-on-my-neck/
lol love the comic.
Anywho…what you’re describing with regards to viewing an Islamic suicide bomber in the context of his/her own moral code – that’s venturing toward the definition of cultural relativism. Or at least, that’s part of cultural relativism. That the way to understand the actions/beliefs of an individual is by examining the beliefs/customs/values of their culture(s).
I agree. I think seeing things from another’s perspective is a crucial characteristic of practical cultural relativism. From there you could make some tentative conclusions and tentative comparisons and even some tentative value judgments. It’s useful for getting a better perspective on one’s own culture as well.
Absolute cultural relativism, as I’m defining it, would be looking at another perspective and saying, well, that’s how they see things, and I can’t come to any conclusions because I wasn’t raised in that culture. Or, you can never know my experience, so you have no basis to say anything about my experience. Take that argument to its full potential and cannot make any observations about other people ever for any reason. There could be no jury system, because no jury members could ever know what the defendant’s particular experience is like. Every individual is a subculture of one.
I totally get what you’re saying by what you define as ‘absolute cultural relativism.’ – I’m personally not a proponent of that idea…but I understand what you are saying. It’s already got a label, though – post-processual archaeology. Or rather, post-processual archaeology is based on the idea that we cannot ever know the culture (or experience) of another human being, and so any objective analysis of another culture is impossible.
To an extent that is partially true…but post-processuals take it to an extreme level.
I’m for tolerance, but that does not mean I’m for cultural relativism or moral relativism, as those concepts neither mean good or evil (subjective = dependent on the observer). I’m for higher truth (objectivity), same as Dr. Martin Luther King had sought in his time.
In seeking higher truth, there are times I believe that we should be critical of norms (separate from the individuals/groups). A simple example: I don’t hate you, I just dislike smoking in my presence — you are still my friend. Basically, hate the action and not the person. At times, this may be difficult to separate I know…tolerance is 2-way. The higher truth here — is that smoking actually kills, regardless of anyone’s subjective opinion or cultural/moral relativism or testimonials like: my father lived to be 97 and smoked 5 packs a day.
Another example: someone could argue that racism doesn’t exist anymore — because look at Oprah, she’s famous and a billionaire! Look at Enrique Inglesias (half Asian, but I think he identifies with Latino), look at this person and that person…they’re successful; there’s no racism. Are those higher truths (objectivity) or are they actual moral/cultural relativism (no right or wrong, no evil or good)?
I don’t care about people’s headscarfs; the Queen of England used to wear them and they were fashionable in western societies once upon a time. I’m going to have the cultural relativists on my back, but here’s IMHO; concerning veils/niqabs over the face (only eyes showing):
(Niqabs are part of their social/cultural/moral norms, yada yada. Understanding the Face Veil: http://www.muhajabah.com/faceveil.htm)
- only women wear them; this is sexist
- they cover the mouth; does not allow full-range facial expressions — symbolic of silencing women
- facial features are a huge part of our identity, therefore, these women are denied self-identity (out in public only?)
- Men (Mohammad) wrote the rules/religion – did they consult women?
- Niqab poses security concern, therefore should override any religious reasons…as the country’s laws of residence should be observed.
Well you already know my position on this considering our discussion in my article. So I won’t go into that again. I am just going to point something out though:
“I’m for tolerance, but that does not mean I’m for cultural relativism or moral relativism, as those concepts neither mean good or evil (subjective = dependent on the observer)”
Cultural relativism actually suggests that good and evil (and any cultural customs) are dependent on the actor (not the observer).
Also, as RLN pointed out, the most extreme view of moral relativism has nothing to do with tolerance…it’s just my own personal take on it (by drawing the line at harming others) that involves tolerance.
This whole thread conversation is weird…people are picking and choosing definitions and scenarios relevant to them…yet no higher truths observed. One person draws a line here while another doesn’t…that’s all RELATIVE people! That’s why you guys are all relatives…everyone believes their own truth.
Well this particular post was a comment by someone who had been asking me to clarify the definitions of moral and cultural relativism in my article. So the definition of cultural relativism in this post is not the anthropological definition. As RLN stated, he’s coming from a philosophy background so that’s where his definitions come from. Moral relativism is a philosophical idea…cultural relativism is an anthropological idea.
I assume the reason it was made a comment of the day was to further explore those two terms and their definitions.
In other sources, cultural and moral both fall under cultural relativism. Are we saying cultural only pertains to DRESS/clothing? And morals cannot be part of people’s culture? That’s ridiculous.
Alrighty let me try to be more explicit here with the definitions:
Moral relativism (in it’s ‘purest’ or ‘extreme’ form, as I understand it, as a philosophy): There is no right or wrong. All morals are equally valid. You cannot provide a more valid reason for your morals than I can for mine. In fact we cannot provide a real reason for our morals at all.
Cultural relativism (as defined by anthropology): The way to understand a foreign culture is by first setting aside your own cultural bias, so that you can analyze that foreign culture as objectively as possible. An individual’s beliefs/customs can only be understood through the lens of their own culture.
So through cultural relativism, I would say that the best way to understand an individual’s morals is by looking at their culture…understanding their culture. And the best way to understand their culture is by being as objective as is possible.
My own personal brand of moral relativism draws the line at personal harm (physical and emotional).
This is where tolerance comes in – if I do not judge a culture without understanding it first, and if I do not make any judgements on that culture (except in the case of causing harm) then I am being rather tolerant. The goal isn’t tolerance…the goal is to understand a foreign culture….but the way that I personally end up combining these ideas (moral and cultural relativism) results in tolerance. Tolerance except in the face of causing harm, both physical and emotional.
yeah, you’re saying the same things as before and in your article. My understanding is that cultural relativism and moral relativism are wishy washy concepts, albeit, I’ll be the most tolerant person you’ll ever meet.
It’s not wishy-washy…I am saying exactly the same thing as before, yes. Because the definitions aren’t wishy-washy…they are actually quite concrete.
We’re talking about concepts and ideas…the definition of a concept is always going to be a little bit more flexible than the definition of a physical object.
In other sources, cultural and moral both fall under cultural relativism — they’re interconnected.
Are there people saying cultural relativism only pertains to DRESS/clothing? And morals cannot be part of people’s culture or distinct from it? I don’t think this holds true.
Higher truths do not equate to extreme moral relativism…it is SIMPLY a higher truth…you’d have to leave cultural and moral relativisms all behind
because it doesn’t necessarily have to do with any of those concepts to arrive at the higher truth. HIGHER TRUTH, is just is. Sure you can develop pros and cons according to your various norms…but it just is…it goes beyond norms.
RACISM used to be a norm…it was socially accepted and widely “practiced”; no one in those days thought RACISM was extremely immoral because it was part of their social/cultural/moral fabric — this was particularly true for privileged whites/majority/norm. We are able to recognize today that racism is wrong and extremely immoral because of Dr. Martin Luther King’s work – who brought us this higher truth.
Racism is an extreme view of moral relativism…so in your view, it “has nothing to do with tolerance”? Geez. it has everything to do with tolerance…and that’s a case in point. Higher truth has nothing to do with relativisms….Anyway I’m through with this topic.
Oooookeypokeydokey….because it’s me, I’ll comment on this.
When I said that moral relativism has nothing to do with tolerance, I meant that moral relativism does not dictate that being tolerant (or being intolerant) is better. As RLN stated in his comment here: in philosophy, absolute moral relativism states that there is no right, wrong, good bad, etc. You can say ‘let’s be tolerant,’ and I can say, ‘let’s blow them up,’ and those are both equally valid statements (according to moral relativism).
I mentioned that for me, personally, I draw the line at causing harm. Racism causes harm…so I don’t view it through a moral relativist lens. It hurts people, so I think it is wrong.
I’ll take two of your quotes. “Racism is an extreme view of moral relativism” and “Higher truths do not equate to extreme moral relativism”
Racism is not a type of moral relativism. Moral relativism isn’t used to justify anything…because you can’t say that one type of action is better than another. In an extreme view of moral relativism racism and tolerance are equally valid. And again, where I draw the line personally is with causing harm…and racism causes harm.
Anywho, thanks for your comments. I honestly wasn’t trying to convince you that cultural and moral relativism is the right way to look at the world. I’ve just spent most of my comment trying to clarify the definitions of these terms.
The thing with cultural and moral relativism, I feel, is that it doesn’t allow you to challenge the norms — and therein lies the problem. If you can’t challenge, then nothing changes.
It was cultural in America, and for most places, for women to stay at home and have babies…because that’s just the way things were…it was cultural for women to wear dresses and skirts, not pants. We had stuck with this cultural relativism and moral relativism and not challenge anything, then there would not have been a feminist movement or today a men’s movement…women would still not have votes blah blah.
I just don’t think we should accept everything at face value…there are a lot of deceptions we’re fed.
Of course we can challenge norms. Nothing about cultural relativism says we can’t challenge cultural norms. It just says that before we do so, we need to understand where those norms came from.
And in my version of moral relativism, I suggest that the time to challenge norms is when they are harming people.
The history of Muslim women’s veiling customs is long and complicated. Much more complicated than Muslim fundamentalists or Muslim stereotypes would lead you to believe. At any given point in the history of Islam, there is no one single Muslim custom about veils, and the customs themselves change over time. Sharia law mostly talks about being modest, which has then been interpreted and re-interpreted in all kinds of ways in different contexts.
Much of Islam was codified and modified after Mohammad’s death, and Islam reflects Mohammad’s life about as accurately as Christianity reflects Jesus’ life, i.e., the followers have taken quite a few liberties over the centuries until some aspects are hardly recognizable. In the early days of Islam, men and women were much more equal (in fact, the earliest communities were quite communal in many ways), because in pre-Muslim Arab culture women had quite a few legal rights that they lost a few centuries later. Mohammad’s early career was very dependent on the financial support from a few widows who had the rights to dispose of their property as they saw fit. Women were key members of the early movement, so in terms of consultation they very well could have been consulted just as much as the men were. That would have been common in pre-Muslim Arab nomadic groups.
It’s when Islam spread into Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) that Muslim leaders began demanding women be veiled, like they were already doing in Mesopotamia. That’s when veiling became more common. Before that, in Arabia men and women were more or less equally covered.
P.S. One caveat: veiling is not simply a product of men subjugating women. It is not in all cases simply evidence of women being forced to be subservient to men, but there’s more going on there, especially if you ask veiled women themselves. Most of them who wear veils don’t wear them because men have ordered them to, any more than American women cover their breasts just because men have ordered them to. The veil is a powerful patriarchal symbol, but there’s more to the practice than that. For many Muslim women, it is a symbol of self-respect and identity, not gender submission. You could argue that they have been brainwashed by patriarchy to say that, but that’s kind of patronizing.
Oo oo…which is part of what the article this comment comes from discusses. Go read it. Comment. Bring it more traffic. (I will self-promote like nobody else. lol.)
yeah, i’ve heard all of this before…but then I’ve also heard reports from these women being treated like “minors” all of their lives; they have to be escorted everywhere and can’t make their own decisions. Because being treated like minors is a symbol of self respect and identity too, huh?
I think you’d need to take other factors into perspective…not just simply clothing as cultural relativism. It’s a love triangle – culture, religion, moral
Firstly, never leaving home without an escort is only true in some countries, not all of them.
Second…you listed a few reasons why you think wearing hijabs is wrong. You made a lot of assumptions about the history of Islam and the history of the veil. He provided you with more accurate historical information.
And all of that historical information points to the idea that the veil itself isn’t oppressive – it’s when modern countries force it that it becomes oppressive.