Absolutism vs Relativism

[arnisador]

Thats your relative opinion.....respecting another culture is vastly different from tolerating genocide, rape, murder, etc.

I agree. Frankly, there are cultures whose values I simply do not respect. I'd be polite if I was in their country, but I don't respect what they believe and do. The way Saudi Arabia treats women is simply wrong, to my mind.

But that's a value judgment...and those are hard to justify on theoretical grounds.

 

[Makalakumu]

Basically, what is right is that which is agreed upon. There is no universal standard. And I think that people across the world can find a lot of stuff that they could agree is right and stuff they could agree is wrong.

This question of when does one act is a very good one though. When? Is going to war to stop genocide justifiable? I think that in the eyes of the world, most people would agree. Is going to war to spread democracy justifiable? I think that it is apparent that the world community is split on this. In fact, I would wager that it is not something the world community supports.

 

[7starmantis]

Ah, now we're judging whole cultures...dangerous territory!

No, I offered no judging of anyone. I said its not correct to say cultures accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of culture.

It doesn't work that way. You have to step out of the bounds of our culture and imagine being raised in a culture where rape is the norm and male dominance of women is accepted. In this culture, if I were to rape someone, there would be nothing wrong with it.

Actually it does. Wait a minute...."male dominance of women is accepted" by whom? Accepted by the dominating men? Accepted by the dominated women? Forced conformity to a system is not acceptance. Just because you rape me every day at 3:26pm doesn't mean I will eventually accept rape as right or correct.

Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity. So, your accepting of rape in these cultures? Your just simply saying who has the biggest muscle makes the rights and wrongs. They may make the laws but since when have you accepted legal doctrine as true and right simply because its "legal"? Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right...........I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women.

The fighting and strife of moral absolutism never ends, because one can never make everyone believe exactly the same thing...

Again, belief isn't needed for truth to exist. Regardless of everyones beliefs, forcing a women to have sex with you against her will is still wrong....even if you disagree. (Not you particualrly...you as the person raping)

For a woman living in a male dominated culture where rape is the normal way of forcing submission, rape would be the norm.

This female, when taken out of her home culture, may expect to be raped by any man and she could learn a different set of cultural norms that says that rape is wrong. And as long as she lived in that culture, rape would be wrong.

If she ever moved back to her home culture and was raped, there would be absolutely no recourse for her new beliefs on right and wrong. Essentially, no one would think that what was done to her was wrong.

So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses? Whew, now thats scary doctrine. Her expectation of being raped doesn't deminish or highten the fact that rape is wrong....just because she was raped alot doesn't mean its now ok to rape her....but of course only in her country where rape is the norm. Skewed....I don't understand your reasoning here.

I think there is a middle ground. I think that contextualism is very important. Knowing and acknowledging the details of the situation instead of just generalizing it as "evil" will help one make a wiser decision. We must recognize peoples differences and attempt to be tolerant, however, we need to try and find some common ground.

In what context is robbing a young woman of her virginity and her sexuality by forcing her to have sex with you ok? Thats absurd. No one is generalizing anything as "evil" just wrong because it violates another humans rights....regardless of how you chosse to see that other human. I recognize peoples differences, but rape is still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think so. Contextually you must then sort out arguments of your wife or daughter being raped while in one of these cultures....is that then ok? Rape is wrong....there is no context that makes it ok.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Everyone wants to reach the same conclusion as you...but, where is your argument?

I said its not correct to say cultures accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of culture.

What else could we possibly mean when we speak of culture, which refers generally accepted traditions and beliefs in a group of people?

Look at the S.T. Williams execution again. Our culture accepts capital punishment, as reflected in our laws. He was, obviously, opposed to it. It's the same as your example...if you believe it was still OK to execute this person, then you accept the norms of the culture over the voice of a single victim. Or, are you hoping to distinguish between 'innocent victims' and 'guilty victims'? He proclaimed his innocence too...but by our cultural standards, as reflected in our laws, he was judged guilty.

So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses?

What else could majority rule possibly mean? Yes, that's what happens as a practical matter, whether the philosphers agree with the outcome or no.

As for the Kitty Dukakis question...are we to be ruled by emotion, or reason? If it's emotion, just put a bullet in Saddam Hussein and be done with it. Heck, use two just in case.

 

[michaeledward]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10453444/

Man pleads guilty to sexually assaulting spouse

Here is an example, while admittedly not as extreme as some of the issues being discussed here, is the same argument.

 

[Kane]

This goes back to the abortion . As we can see abortion is a very relative moral issue because there are many ways to look at it. Something like pre-meditated murder on the other hand would be absolute to most people.

But in reality there is no such thing as absolute. Even a serial killer does what he thinks is right in there head. But we have to have the illusion that it is unacceptable otherwise something like murder would have a higher rate.

But I cannot stress how much everything is relative in reality. Not just moral issues, EVERYTHING! Even God himself does not know the absolute if you logically look at it. If there is a God he knows about everything in His universe, right? But how does he know for sure he is the only God? Maybe there is a higher up God that our God does not know about. And then perhaps this higher up God doesn't know about an even higher God. No one knows anything, not even God himself. Therefore anything can be any way we perceive it. But putting this type of relativism on something as serious as murder is dangerous. Our society must turn a few moral issues into absolutes. Otherwise society would crumble.

 

[7starmantis]

Basically, what is right is that which is agreed upon. There is no universal standard. And I think that people across the world can find a lot of stuff that they could agree is right and stuff they could agree is wrong.

Thats absurd...so by your deffinition rape is right? See, the problem is you are trying to be "tolerant" and allow other cultures their own beliefs, thus accepting rape while trying to appear "sane" in your own culture while saying rape is wrong. The problem is that rape cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. Either raping a person is wrong, or it is right.

It seems no one wants to answer the tough questions here, just skirt around the serious issues. If rape is right in a culture, why does the victim not agree? If "right" is determined by the masses, then why are prisoners held responsible for their "crimes" in prison, which are "right" by the "culture" of the prisoners? If rape is right in certain cultures, is your wife or daughter getting raped there then ok? Why do we feel we must turn a blind eye to what is wrong just because there are those who believe differently? The young women (and men) who get raped are certainly not accepting of it...why are we? Maybe we are just too far removed, we dont understand the issues that are developed by rape. Having dated several women who have been raped, being married to a woman who has been raped, having worked as a paramedic and seeing first hand the after affects (physically and emotionally) of rape and attempted rape, and having physically stoped two rapes in progress; I can most assuredly tell you I have never seen a victim of rape say, "Its ok, his culture accepts it". Are we to ignore the voice of these victims because they aren't powerful enough to force our attention?

Everyone wants to reach the same conclusion as you...but, where is your argument?

My argument is above. I've seen nothing of evidentiary support for relativism in this issue. Just people saying "It can't be absolute". Again, the problem with relativism is that in order to stay correct, you must align yourself with those who are in power...regardless of who they are or what they stand for.

If rape is not absolutely wrong, you must allow acceptance of it. That sikens me. Acceptance of rape by anyone, for any reason is wrong, and I'll go as far as saying its an excuse to not spend the effort or mental energy to stand against those who are in power or who "scare you".

What else could we possibly mean when we speak of culture, which refers generally accepted traditions and beliefs in a group of people?

So do you also not believe in individualism? To label everyone in a geographic location with a word like culture is constricting, violating, and narrow minded, in my opinion. I'm not syaing you are these things, just that this method of thinking lends itself to these adjectives. This is another problem with relativism, its denies personal or individual freedom and rights. Its all relative to the masses.

Look at the S.T. Williams execution again. Our culture accepts capital punishment, as reflected in our laws. He was, obviously, opposed to it. It's the same as your example...if you believe it was still OK to execute this person, then you accept the norms of the culture over the voice of a single victim.

No no, its absolutely not the same. I'm not saying we need to write our laws and "norms" as you put it, on the voice of a single person, but we cannot accept a violation of these rights as correct simply because of the minority of the victims. In the case you mentioned, the victims were were of higher quantity than most. Its a twisted way to look at things, he committed these very crimes we are debating....is he then the victim? Ok, lets leave discussion of his case to the other thread, and move on with this one.

As for the Kitty Dukakis question...are we to be ruled by emotion, or reason? If it's emotion, just put a bullet in Saddam Hussein and be done with it. Heck, use two just in case.

I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this. I'm not talking about emotion, but reason. Reason says we cannot simply ignore the wrongs because the victims are too few in number or power.

But in reality there is no such thing as absolute. Even a serial killer does what he thinks is right in there head. But we have to have the illusion that it is unacceptable otherwise something like murder would have a higher rate.

Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute. Its not absolute in that everyone agrees and believes the same way, but that the act is wrong regardless of belief. If the rapist believes rape to be wrong or right is irrelevant, the act of rape is wrong regardless.

If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

To label everyone in a geographic location with a word like culture is constricting, violating, and narrow minded, in my opinion. I'm not syaing you are these things, just that this method of thinking lends itself to these adjectives.

You seem to be denying the existence of culture. I'm trying to use it as a cultural anthropologist, or a sociologist, would. You can take a course in American Culture at many colleges, and many courses in cultural anthropology...they all agree to label the Yanomami of S. America, say, as having a certain culture.

I'm not talking about emotion, but reason. Reason says we cannot simply ignore the wrongs because the victims are too few in number or power.

But to say 'wrongs' is to assume the conclusion.

No one wants the conclusion to be anything other than the obvious: Rape is wrong, because by definition it is an act done against someone's will. But the death penalty is also an act (usually) done against someone's will, and we accept that...it's an apparent contradiction, no?

]Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute.

I don't think it's fair to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they do not understand you?

 

[Floating Egg]

I consider myself a moral and cultural relativist, and I’d like to chime in, but I don’t know where to begin. Every time I start to write something, I know that I’m heading into essay territory. It’s too bad that I didn’t read this thread when it was first posted.

 

[Kane]

Again, it seems everyone is having trouble understanding this absolute. Its not absolute in that everyone agrees and believes the same way, but that the act is wrong regardless of belief. If the rapist believes rape to be wrong or right is irrelevant, the act of rape is wrong regardless.

If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.

7sm

Yes rape is wrong, but it is only wrong to us. Imagine if you did not think the way you did however rational it may be. In reality its your own conscionce mind that decides what is immoral and what is not. Many people world over think that it is very immoral to disobey their husband and that women here are doing a "wrong". They claim this to be absolute but it ain't a fundemental universal moral belief. I agree with you that there are certain things that should be universally considered absolute but the fact remains that morality and what is absolute depends on what we think. Because most of the world believes that rape is a moral wrong it can be declared a universal moral wrong. But imagine living in a world where we thought it wasn't a moral wrong. Then it wouldn't moral. Should it be considered immoral to rape? IMHO it definatley should. But if you were in a different reality where rape was not considered as such then it wouldn't be a big deal. Absolute moral wrongs is for us to decide and if there is a certian wrong we think should be universally accepted then we need to make it known. Rape by default is universally accepted so there is little argument.

 

[7starmantis]

You seem to be denying the existence of culture. I'm trying to use it as a cultural anthropologist, or a sociologist, would. You can take a course in American Culture at many colleges, and many courses in cultural anthropology...they all agree to label the Yanomami of S. America, say, as having a certain culture.

No I'm not denying the existence of culture, but accepting the existence of individualistic culture. Culture can't set what is right and wrong, because thats still ignoring the voice of those oppressed. So are we saying slavery was right back when it was in full swing here in america....and quite heavily accepted? Our culture accepted it...so it must have been right. I say slavery was always wrong, regardless of our acceptance of it.

To quote you here:

Yes, that's what happens as a practical matter, whether the philosphers agree with the outcome or no.

Courses taught in culture and anthropology are now the deciders of right and wrong? I'm not sayign culture doesn't exist, but to base what is right as far as violating a persons human rights on what the majority thinks is absurd. So I could come beat you up and have my way with you and be right as long as I have a group of people who agree with me? To say rape is relative to the masses ideas of it is to accept the violation of basic humans rights of those victims. Its simply not about belief. I can be tolerant and accept beliefs outsdie of my own, but there must be absolutes at some point. Without absolutes, the study of science is merely childish babble and opinionated discussions.

But to say 'wrongs' is to assume the conclusion.

No one wants the conclusion to be anything other than the obvious: Rape is wrong, because by definition it is an act done against someone's will. But the death penalty is also an act (usually) done against someone's will, and we accept that...it's an apparent contradiction, no?

No. Plain and simple, I see no contradiction. But what is happening is your jumping to another issue because the current one is too hard to finish. This is the problem with these discussions. Also, one is not right based on the correctness of another. They are not connected, rape can be wrong regardless of the issue of the death penalty.

I don't think it's fair to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they do not understand you?

I didn't make that assumption.

Yes rape is wrong, but it is only wrong to us. Imagine if you did not think the way you did however rational it may be. In reality its your own conscionce mind that decides what is immoral and what is not. Many people world over think that it is very immoral to disobey their husband and that women here are doing a "wrong". They claim this to be absolute but it ain't a fundemental universal moral belief. I agree with you that there are certain things that should be universally considered absolute but the fact remains that morality and what is absolute depends on what we think. Because most of the world believes that rape is a moral wrong it can be declared a universal moral wrong. But imagine living in a world where we thought it wasn't a moral wrong. Then it wouldn't moral. Should it be considered immoral to rape? IMHO it definatley should. But if you were in a different reality where rape was not considered as such then it wouldn't be a big deal. Absolute moral wrongs is for us to decide and if there is a certian wrong we think should be universally accepted then we need to make it known. Rape by default is universally accepted so there is little argument.

Again, I'll say that I'm not talking about morals or religion. When I say rape is wrong, its because it violates he human rights of another human. That is wrong, regardless of the belief system of the rapist. Its not the thinking of rape as wrong that makes it wrong.....its the action rape commits.

7sm

 

[shesulsa]

It appears to me that some of you are confusing "culture" with legislation and lax enforcement, corruption.

 

[Makalakumu]

No, I offered no judging of anyone. I said its not correct to say cultures accept rape, because then your leaving out the voice of the raped women in your definition of culture.

What do you think the voice of a raped woman is going to say if she is raped in a society where it is totally accepted and there is no way for her to know anything different?

If you think that she will suddenly be "informed from above" about what is "actually right" then I suggest you take a few cultural anthropology classes. That doesn't happen.

Actually it does. Wait a minute...."male dominance of women is accepted" by whom? Accepted by the dominating men? Accepted by the dominated women? Forced conformity to a system is not acceptance. Just because you rape me every day at 3:26pm doesn't mean I will eventually accept rape as right or correct.

Again, you need to step our the bounds of your learning and attempt to see this from a different POV. Imagine yourself in a culture where rape is an accepted practice and one learns nothing different. As a male, you would learn to rape and you would rape.

Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity. So, your accepting of rape in these cultures? Your just simply saying who has the biggest muscle makes the rights and wrongs. They may make the laws but since when have you accepted legal doctrine as true and right simply because its "legal"? Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right...........I say you can be right regardless of who is in control or what the norms are for raping women.

That isn't the way it works. That isn't how cultures work and that isn't how societies work. There is no universal moral language that humans intuitively understand. All we have are genes force certain social behaviors. That these behaviors may randomly choose common aspects of accepted western morality is of no consequence. There are always successful exceptions.

Norms are the only thing that define what is right and wrong in a culture. They can change with popular opinion or through oppressive power, but they are not informed by any absolutes.

Again, belief isn't needed for truth to exist. Regardless of everyones beliefs, forcing a women to have sex with you against her will is still wrong....even if you disagree. (Not you particualrly...you as the person raping)

This implies that you believe in some form of external truth regarding morality and this is a common position for people who accept absolute morality. However, if there is such a thing, there must be some evidence for it...and thus for there is none...actually there is worse then none for absolute truth. An analysis of the historical record in any society supports relativism nicely.

The bottom line is that the environment in which a culture devolops determines everything about its structure...morality included. After the culture makes contact with another culture, there can be a flow of ideas that change both cultures. Ideas that best the fit the environment accepted by the culture and others are discarded.

With that being said, if the idea that woman's suffrage did not in some way alleviate a culture's environment pressures, then it too would be discarded.

BTW - I do not believe this to be the case. In fact, as a moral relativist, I would argue that rape no londer has any place in a modernized world environment. As societies modernize the roles of men and women meld together thus making the oppression of women maladaptive...ie they are less able to compete.

So right and wrong are defined by actions of the masses? Whew, now thats scary doctrine. Her expectation of being raped doesn't deminish or highten the fact that rape is wrong....just because she was raped alot doesn't mean its now ok to rape her....but of course only in her country where rape is the norm. Skewed....I don't understand your reasoning here.

The norms that you learned in our society will not be the same as the norms that boys and girls learn in a society that oppresses women and accepts rape. The people in that society will not suddenly see it your way because it is written externally for all to see. If they do change to accept your views at all it is because the background environment and rules of their culture have changed to become more like us. In other words, the masses of chosen it. That is the way it is.

In what context is robbing a young woman of her virginity and her sexuality by forcing her to have sex with you ok? Thats absurd. No one is generalizing anything as "evil" just wrong because it violates another humans rights....regardless of how you chosse to see that other human. I recognize peoples differences, but rape is still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think so. Contextually you must then sort out arguments of your wife or daughter being raped while in one of these cultures....is that then ok? Rape is wrong....there is no context that makes it ok.

There is no context in our culture that can make it right, but in other cultures this may not be the case. Our culture's values do not determine right and wrong for everyone. They only do so for us and for those we oppress/impress with our values. People chose in a culture what is right and wrong for themselves and they only things that can make make them change is if they choose to accept certain ideas or if they are overtaken by a culture with more power.

 

[arnisador]

No I'm not denying the existence of culture, but accepting the existence of individualistic culture.

That's already a contradiction in terms. Check out the definition of culture:

• 1.
  1. a.The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
     b.These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
     c.These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
     d.The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

Notice that it is specifically not about individuals but rather about larger groups. (To respond briefly to shesulsa, 1.a. "institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" would include a society's laws--the laws reflect the beliefs of the group, unless imposed dictatorially.) There is no, and can be no, "individualistic culture" as such; culture is inherently collective. A single person can no more have his or her own culture than he can have his or her own private language, legal system, etc.

You don't have to like, or agree with, a part of a culture. But whether you get married or not, the institution of marriage is still a part o fthis culture.

Courses taught in culture and anthropology are now the deciders of right and wrong?

No, no one said that. You seem to rephrase things in a way that makes them easy for you to refute. I was pointing out that the word 'culture' has a well-accepted meaning in English. You are using it to mean something else. Looking at those courses would give an idea how the word is actually used and what it means.

So I could come beat you up and have my way with you and be right as long as I have a group of people who agree with me?

Either you believe that there is absolute right and wrong--say, as handed down in the Bible--or not. Isn't that what we're talking about? I don't see that there is absolute right and wrong that can be derived from first principles like the laws of physics. That means there's some arbitrariness. You don't want a group to decide what is or isn't right--I don't want one person to make that decision. Charles Manson thought he was right. Shall I respect his belief, or side with the group that made the laws that say that's wrong?

How can laws and norms of accepted behaviour differ so very much from time to time and place to place if what's right isn't defined locally?

Plain and simple, I see no contradiction. But what is happening is your jumping to another issue because the current one is too hard to finish.

No. I'm using your very logic. It leads to a conclusion you don't like. What you should do is reconsider your reasoning. Instead, you reject the data showing that your reasoning is flawed.

You argue that something is wrong if the person to whom it is happening doesn't like it. But, when that reasoning is applied to a new case, you reject the result. You're trying to have it both ways.

. When I say rape is wrong, its because it violates he human rights of another human.

OK, let's try this again. You've given a reason why it's wrong. Your reason is not specific to this act, but to any that violates another's human rights. Surely killing someone violates their human rights. It is, as you say, not a matter of belief (say, that capital punishment is just) but of the action itself. Given your logic, mustn't you conclude that the execution of S.T. Williams was also wrong?

This isn't changing the subject. It's exploring whether your reasoning is sound and complete--a test of it. It's the very basis of philosophical argument.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thats absurd...so by your deffinition rape is right?

According to the morals that I learned and accept, then it is wrong.

The problem is that rape cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.

Yes, it can, depending on one's POV and justification. Take a look at the contradictions within our culture regarding right and wrong.

In our culture, killing a person is both wrong and right. In our culture, stealing is both wrong and right. In our culture poisoning people is both wrong and right. In our culture, wasting our natural resources is both wrong and right. Our culture alone is a perfect example of moral relativism. The definition of wrong and right all depends on who is doing the defining. If one peddles enough money, influence, and power, one can commit all sorts of "abominations" and make them right.

With that being said, is it so hard to understand that two different cultures may have two entirely different rules regarding rape? What makes one cultures definition of right and wrong better then another's?

It seems no one wants to answer the tough questions here, just skirt around the serious issues. If rape is right in a culture, why does the victim not agree?

What is the victim really going to think about rape in a culture that accepts it and in a culture where there is very little inflow of other ideas? How is she going to be informed that what happened to her is wrong?

If "right" is determined by the masses, then why are prisoners held responsible for their "crimes" in prison, which are "right" by the "culture" of the prisoners?

Good question. I guess the answer is "when in Rome do as the Romans do...and if you don't like what the Romans do, don't go to Rome."

If rape is right in certain cultures, is your wife or daughter getting raped there then ok?

It may be wrong in my eyes, but in the eyes of people of the society in which it happened, everything would be fine. I could attempt to spread my cultural ideas to them and sway their viewpoints and I may or may not be successful. Or I could run for politics, get elected, and use my nations might to sway their society by force. Or someone from their culture could do the same to mine and force me to accept it or die. Either way, its all relative.

Maybe we are just too far removed, we dont understand the issues that are developed by rape. Having dated several women who have been raped, being married to a woman who has been raped, having worked as a paramedic and seeing first hand the after affects (physically and emotionally) of rape and attempted rape, and having physically stoped two rapes in progress; I can most assuredly tell you I have never seen a victim of rape say, "Its ok, his culture accepts it".

It does not surprise me that you cannot find someone who accepts rape within our culture.

Are we to ignore the voice of these victims because they aren't powerful enough to force our attention?

The term "victims" is relative.

If rape is not wrong as an absolute, you must be willing to accept one of your loved ones being raped and that being ok and acceptable because they might have been raped by someone from a culture that accepts rape.

Rape can be relative and one can still accept a set of values that says that rape is wrong. If you go to a place where rape is the accepted norm and someone you love is raped, you may be angry because this goes against everything that you believe, but in that place, at that time, what happened was not wrong. One can work to eventually work to make it wrong, but at the place and time that it happened, in the context of the society, it was not wrong.

I need to amend my quote from above "When in Rome do as the Romans do...and if you don't like what the Romans do, don't go to Rome...unless you have an army at your back."

 

[arnisador]

An aside, not fully on topic....Peter Singer, the Princeton philospher, is well-known for his belief that we are enslaving animals the way we have enslaved humans and that that is just as wrong. (He has mor ethoughts on non-human animals as well.) He sees most of us as horribly cruel for that. Most people dismiss him. Our culture accepts this treatment of animals. Some cultures revere, say, cows, but otehrwise treat animals as we do. Maybe some day we'll decide that animals should be treated as humans are, and that killing an animal is murder. Cultures change!

 

[shesulsa]

There is no context in our culture that can make it right, but in other cultures this may not be the case.

Is this why women from other cultures receive capitol punishment for standing up against rape, reporting it, talking about it, fighting back against it? Why a scant few in these cultures manage to get out of their country alive?

Just because the voice of the raped is suppressed doesn't mean that rape is tolerated by women, nor does it mean all men in that culture will commit rape. Sorry, while the majority may, I don't buy the absolutism of some of your statements.

Our culture's values do not determine right and wrong for everyone. They only do so for us and for those we oppress/impress with our values.

Indeed - just as the war on morals right here within our United States is a wrong and unjust one, yes?

People chose in a culture what is right and wrong for themselves and they only things that can make make them change is if they choose to accept certain ideas or if they are overtaken by a culture with more power.

Africa is an excellent example of where this argument fails. Women there are raped by AIDS infected men. They fight back, they report the crime, but it still keeps happening. There is abject poverty like we know nothing of here in America. How is any culture without shoes, food, adequate shelter, medical care, safe drinking water supposed to stand up to a government rich with diamonds, arms and white people? This is complete oppression and while the culture of these people might tolerate and even encourage the rape and mutilation of girls and women, the only other recourse these women have is to commit suicide. Does this change culture?

 

[shesulsa]

Cultures change!

Yes, in most conditions cultures can and do develop without outside influence, though there are notorious cultures who have not done so (some tribes found in the 20th century for example) and some in third world nations that, even though near technology and relief, get none.

 

[Makalakumu]

Indeed - just as the war on morals right here within our United States is a wrong and unjust one, yes?

Wrong or unjust would depend on how many people one has on one's side. This is readily apparent with gay marriage. While think that homosexuals should have equal rights, the majority does not think so. Cultural change still can happen through the avenues of impression/oppression, however. For instance, education might eventually make a difference by spreading ideas. Or, the Supreme Court might also rule that homosexuals deserve equal rights and this law would be oppressed upon the majority by the power of the government.

Africa is an excellent example of where this argument fails. Women there are raped by AIDS infected men. They fight back, they report the crime, but it still keeps happening. There is abject poverty like we know nothing of here in America. How is any culture without shoes, food, adequate shelter, medical care, safe drinking water supposed to stand up to a government rich with diamonds, arms and white people? This is complete oppression and while the culture of these people might tolerate and even encourage the rape and mutilation of girls and women, the only other recourse these women have is to commit suicide. Does this change culture?

Yes, because this example highlights another way that cultures can change. AIDS affected the environment in Africa and people are reacting to that change. AIDS is like a meteor strike to that continent...a highly destructive external phenomenon. People are not learning to be different based on any absolute definition of morality.

 

[heretic888]

If you ask me, 'absolutism' and 'relativism' are the same damn thing.

Both ideologies make a priori metaphysical assumptions about reality, that there is some 'bottom line' or 'zero point' that we can finally and ultimately judge all life by. Of course, there is actually no proof that such a 'zero point' actually exists. It's just a philosophical assumption on the part of the individual.

Relativism is bit more tricky than, say, Biblical absolutism, but it still has its own 'zero point' or 'final truth' by which we are to rigidly and dualistically judge everyone and everything by. In essence, it is a form of subtle absolutism dressed up in sheep's clothing.

There is no 'zero point'. Everything, without exception, exists within a context. And that context exists within another, deeper context. And even that context exists in yet another, even deeper context. And.... well, you get the idea.

As philosopher Ken Wilber put it: "It's turtles all the way down, your highness."

Morals, like all forms of culture, are social constructions. This doesn't mean all moral beliefs or values are equally valid, mind you, but the fact still remains that they're things we made up in order to live with another. They don't exist magically independent of us, in some kind of fantastical a priori cultural vacuum. Nor is there anything outside of such social constructions that we can look to to try and impose the validity of our moral norms as some type of absolute Other.

It's stuff we made up, but it ain't all relative.

Laterz.