I think ideally societies could be judged by one based on how they treat people, and that generally malicious actions found to be culturally accepted in certain societies are recognizable in others. I think the primary fear is that there will be a slippery slope, where a good-natured judgement of what is almost universally considered to be an evil practice in one society turns into another having a superiority complex.
You're bang on, pointing out unethical consequences of cultural relativism without succumbing to absolutist temptation. But cannot agree USA "best" judging by treatment of its own and others.
Possible criteria:
- % GNP for foreign aid
- environmental policy
- foreign policy
- Social policy (health care, education, etc...)
- democratic society but also providing wide range of political spectrum in media, elections, etc...
awesome! but shouldn't we try to bring about progress in other societies? real change happens from within a society but we can help that change happen. we must not just condemn evil with words but also with actions.
so if one segment of a society is oppressing another, and the oppressed cannot defend themselves, we should not intervene? i think we should generally. we are citizens of the world.
As i said, i do find that to be a positive thing to do. But who determines this "should"? A liberator using violence to force others to join his cause is not a polar opposite of the run of the mill oppressor. When I hear "citizens," I am only able to translate it as "slaves."
i liked how you made your points, but let me tell you the United States is not the 'best' society/culture with regards to morality even when using your criteria.
You should read Renato Rosaldo: Culture and Truth especially the part about Grief and the headhunters rage. You may be able to google that essay. Critique is possible and in fact often necessary and as you point out goes both ways.
Biologically, there will always be an ingroup and an outgroup. We have to choose sides. We can't all just get along. War is deeply ingrained in human evolution. I wish I could post links... There's a lot of work being done in evolutionary biology to back all my rhetoric up. Maybe I'll post a video response.
I got my video responses on "pending approval" as well (though I'm not sure why, guess I just like to be the first to know.. though obviously that doesn't hold either...).
Are you apoligizing for not being on Youtube 24 hours a day? ; )>
I think ideally societies could be judged by one based on how they treat people, and that generally malicious actions found to be culturally accepted in certain societies are recognizable in others. I think the primary fear is that there will be a slippery slope, where a good-natured judgement of what is almost universally considered to be an evil practice in one society turns into another having a superiority complex.
neothi 8 months ago
You're bang on, pointing out unethical consequences of cultural relativism without succumbing to absolutist temptation. But cannot agree USA "best" judging by treatment of its own and others.
Possible criteria:
- % GNP for foreign aid
- environmental policy
- foreign policy
- Social policy (health care, education, etc...)
- democratic society but also providing wide range of political spectrum in media, elections, etc...
Winner = Scandinavian countries?
PS: I'm not Scandinavian!
moroccanroller 2 years ago
Agreed.
I advise you to check out my more recent videos, and the links I provide on my channel page.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
awesome! but shouldn't we try to bring about progress in other societies? real change happens from within a society but we can help that change happen. we must not just condemn evil with words but also with actions.
biggrim5 2 years ago
I agree that it is good to help alleviate suffering.
I just don't think that such action should be forced upon people.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
so if one segment of a society is oppressing another, and the oppressed cannot defend themselves, we should not intervene? i think we should generally. we are citizens of the world.
biggrim5 2 years ago
As i said, i do find that to be a positive thing to do. But who determines this "should"? A liberator using violence to force others to join his cause is not a polar opposite of the run of the mill oppressor. When I hear "citizens," I am only able to translate it as "slaves."
Also, what do you mean when you say "we"?
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
@biggrim5 no, we shouldn't. Who do you think are, God?
sugarbrownrabbit 1 year ago
i liked how you made your points, but let me tell you the United States is not the 'best' society/culture with regards to morality even when using your criteria.
Tigre779 3 years ago
Yeah, the leaders of the US use the incredible violent force at their disposal to murder and enslave others, within the "nation" and without.
Which area of the world do you find to be the most respectful of human life and dignity?
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
you are the man
adimdir 4 years ago
You should read Renato Rosaldo: Culture and Truth especially the part about Grief and the headhunters rage. You may be able to google that essay. Critique is possible and in fact often necessary and as you point out goes both ways.
ricko1111 4 years ago
Biologically, there will always be an ingroup and an outgroup. We have to choose sides. We can't all just get along. War is deeply ingrained in human evolution. I wish I could post links... There's a lot of work being done in evolutionary biology to back all my rhetoric up. Maybe I'll post a video response.
CadicusTheDamned 4 years ago
Two thumbs up.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Excellent. Groups, individuals -- no difference. Wrong is wrong.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Who are you replying to?
blueadept111 4 years ago
Ah, I overlooked the lag between posting and approval.
Link to original video is now in the description.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Oops.. sorry ^^; approved.
Namari12 4 years ago
I got my video responses on "pending approval" as well (though I'm not sure why, guess I just like to be the first to know.. though obviously that doesn't hold either...).
Are you apoligizing for not being on Youtube 24 hours a day? ; )>
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago