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’.
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… Read more »
That view is wrong if you accept some ambiguity to moral situations yet hold that certain core values are universal goods, freedom for example is a universal good and in some cases freedom being violated is painfully obvious the example you gave being such a case. An issue like abortion is less clear when assessing along freedom lines but universal moral truths come into it for me when you have stark violations.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.