The Cultural Left: Making the World Safe for Fundamentalism

[Jon Miller]

why are people mixing in science in an arguement about philosoply, ethics, morality, culture and th elike?

science is not like the others

Jon Miller

[Spiffor]

The rethorics of this article is horrible. These are Fezzisms which look good :

1. Take some group you don't like, and give them a name you don't like ("cultural leftists"), so that the wrongs of this group ashames the whole Left...

2. Make bold and unbacked assertions about them (absolute cultural relativists who are however loathing the west, cultural warfare), and take these assertions for true during the rest of your essay. NEVER have a hint of doubt about the truth of your assertions. The fact that there is no example or statistic to back them should not worry you.

3. Describe irrelevant consequences, and use some rethorics and "common sense" (i.e preconceptions or misconceptions you assume most people have, and will use while reading the article) to bind them with the cultural left.

4. Make the same gross generalizations about the opponents of the cultural left. As before, don't back them. Hold them for truth, and don't doubt about them for one second.

Voilà ! Your article is ready ! You can now send it to some newspaper who'll be very glad to insult the Left with this empty hull. Even though it has no contents, the hull is quite well done, so that'll do the trick.

[Spiffor]

About the real issue, i.e cultural relativism:

I think that cultures, ideologies etc should be judged through a clearly defined ethics, even though this ethics may be arbitrary (i.e imposed by the State, by the powerful Religion, by the junta of scientifics / philosophers in power, whatever).

As such, I have no problem with people or organizations having positive or negative judgments towards different cultures. Of course, I'd hope these same people could be able to criticize their own culture / religion without always laudating it.

Otherwise, we would have a crass ethnocentrism (i.e thinking that your group is the most important and the best, and judging only according your group's values and traditions), which is precisely the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. That's the ticket of the fundamentalists.

Some extent of cultural relativism is needed if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the colonizations, especially the African colonization.

1. We need people who are real cultural relativists as observers of cultures and religions, whether foreign or our own. Only a maximum cultural relativism can allow accurate observations.

2. We need people who have the authority to judge these cultures based on a precise ethics, whether they are priests, politicians, philosophers or scientists. These "high ranked moralists" must be aware that their judgment is not universal, and that it could be (will be) badly taken on the recieving end.

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

As a conclusion, my opinion of a "reasonable cultural relativism", is that of a system which allows personal and organisational judgments. But it keeps in mind that these judgments are not universally shared, and the judged group needs to have its views respected.

[Q Classic]

you know, at the rate that liberals are getting tarred and feathered by conservatives, i wouldn't be surprised if a small group of people began to believe that 9/11 and saddam's regime were created by anti-american liberal traitors...

[Az]

I just wrote a bunch of replies, but the server ate them.

Jon: where did you see that I said that science was a tool to answer ethical questions? All I said that a deity that may or may not exist is not better.

[Jon Miller]

it is better, because it is not misusing a tool

religion is not being misused to answer questions of ethics

science is, when you try to use science to do ethics, you weaken science

when you try to use religion to answer quetions of ethics, nothing negative occurs

therefore religion is better than science to use to answer quetsions of ethics

as is philosophy (for those of you that find the prolbem of the existence of a deity to be insurmountable)

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it is better, because it is not misusing a tool

religion is not being misused to answer questions of ethics

science is, when you try to use science to do ethics, you weaken science

when you try to use religion to answer quetions of ethics, nothing negative occurs

therefore religion is better than science to use to answer quetsions of ethics

as is philosophy (for those of you that find the prolbem of the existence of a deity to be insurmountable)

Jon Miller

All you seem to me to be saying is that science does not properly count ethics as being in its subject field while religion does.

But that doesn't mean religion is any more use than science in the sphere of ethics since it relies on metaphysical extravagance.

I could invent a subject called "Schmethics" which deals in ethical concepts but is otherwise nonsense and it would be on a par with religion, so what advantage is there really.

[Jon Miller]

no

science is this way of understandign our world

it does a fairly good job (As can be seen by all the technology we have, that it ahs given to us)

it is built arround experiments and mathematics in such away that everyone can agree on
1 the mathematics
2 the experiments (there must be repeatability here)

when you try and claim that science is your basis of ethics you are weakening science because you are rating something that is not mathematical or experimental equally with what is

in a sense you are taking us back to the time when what the church said about the universe, and what galileo said where taken on equal footing

as such you are trying to reverse all that we have acheived since the dawn of the age of enlightenment

as a scientist, I have reason to be upset

Schmethics would be much superior than science to answering questions of ethics

Jon Miller

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
About the real issue, i.e cultural relativism:

I think that cultures, ideologies etc should be judged through a clearly defined ethics, even though this ethics may be arbitrary (i.e imposed by the State, by the powerful Religion, by the junta of scientifics / philosophers in power, whatever).

As such, I have no problem with people or organizations having positive or negative judgments towards different cultures. Of course, I'd hope these same people could be able to criticize their own culture / religion without always laudating it.

Otherwise, we would have a crass ethnocentrism (i.e thinking that your group is the most important and the best, and judging only according your group's values and traditions), which is precisely the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. That's the ticket of the fundamentalists.

"Ethno" has nothing to do with it.

Some extent of cultural relativism is needed if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the colonizations, especially the African colonization.

"Let the darkies kill each other, they think it's ok"?

1. We need people who are real cultural relativists as observers of cultures and religions, whether foreign or our own. Only a maximum cultural relativism can allow accurate observations.

don't mind that.

2. We need people who have the authority to judge these cultures based on a precise ethics, whether they are priests, politicians, philosophers or scientists. These "high ranked moralists" must be aware that their judgment is not universal, and that it could be (will be) badly taken on the recieving end.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you continuing to insist there is no right or wrong?

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

Why not? It could be the ethical thing to do.

As a conclusion, my opinion of a "reasonable cultural relativism", is that of a system which allows personal and organisational judgments. But it keeps in mind that these judgments are not universally shared, and the judged group needs to have its views respected.

"We, the people of Babyeatlandia, thank you for respecting our customs and traditions."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) Bugger off if that is all you have to say.

Is that your counterargument? Weak, I say.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
2) Ideaology that advocate the overthrow of the status quo are inherently political.

You should distinct between Marx's definition of communism and what he advocated of achieving communism. Besides, not all communists are marxists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
"Let the darkies kill each other, they think it's ok"?

No. The failure of colonializations, especially African colonization, was to assume that the encountered people were savages. In America and Australia, these people were simply slaughtered. In Africa, things were a bit more subtle, as these people have witnessed the utter disappearance of all their cultural bearings (notably, African tribes didn't get their identity out of the territory they occupied, but out of their assumed ethnicity). The cultural void that is Africa right now partly explains why there are so many bloodbaths and so little willingness to solve problems together there. All of this because we were convinced our culture was inherently superior and that imposing it could only benefit the Africans. The disappearance of their obviously inferior culture was not a problem, it was a blessing.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you continuing to insist there is no right or wrong?

There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. Morals is dictated by influential human beings, and as such, no morals will be universal as long as humanity doesn't share a one and only culture.
"Good" definitions of right or wrong should hail from a precise ethics code, defined by the influential members of the culture (make it plural if several cultures feel they have the same values). I would actually have no problem with written ethics code which are as complex as laws (besides, laws often reflect the culture's morality). However, the people who judge cultures thanks to this ethics code should be aware that the ethics code in the targeted culture is different.
As such, the "judges" should be aware that their definition of right or wrong is a human, flawed and not-universal definition. As such, they shouldn't assume the target culture will agree with their judgments. Morals is generally to be used at an internal level.

Quote:

3. We need to see if there is an internal pressure for change within a given culture. If the pressure for change goes into the direction we feel being right, we should help it. However, we must keep in mind that we cannot force the change to a culture that refuses it.

Why not? It could be the ethical thing to do.

For you, but not for them. If you intend to do the right thing for a population, make sure that the population wants it, or somehow desires it.
Let's take the example of the Muslim veil (I purposefully don't take the most horrible things backwards Arabs still do to women). For many of us westerners, it is a scandalous mark of womens' inferiority in the Arab society. For many women who wear it, it is a cloth they'd feel naked / slutty without. Would it be ethical to force Arab women to take out the veil ?
Let's now use an imaginary example. Finland has become the hyperpower of the world, and believes it comes from its compulsory nakedness. All Finn scholars and priests agree : nakedness is really a liberation for the human being, and is the milestone that made the Finn society that harmonious and great. It is obvious the clothed populations must be freed of this oppression, and Finland will now use much of its huge power to promote compulsory nakedness worldwide.
Would you like the Finns to put up a significant pressure over Israel to have you naked ? After all, for them, it is the ethical thing to do.

"We, the people of Babyeatlandia, thank you for respecting our customs and traditions."

More seriously, as long as there is not a wind of change in the society, that means the people there are happy with eating babies. Attacking (or putting whatever pressure you want) Babeeatlandia would be counterproductive as they'd continue their tradition anyways, and will resent the attacker.
It doesn't mean their traditions should be tolerated as soon as they put a foot on your territory.

[Ben Kenobi]

If relativism benefits anyone it benefits the right, since it sanctions might makes right, which is their favourite hobby.

Remember all moral values are supposed to be equivalent, so why should your nation take precedence over another?

Relativism, for all it's faults, cannot sanction Might makes right.

That's a different ideology, inconsistent with relativism, that is often featured in the agendas of those who espouse relativism.

Hence my first post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Attacking (or putting whatever pressure you want) Babeeatlandia would be counterproductive as they'd continue their tradition anyways, and will resent the attacker.

It doesn't mean their traditions should be tolerated as soon as they put a foot on your territory.

Fine, here's a concrete example.

Suttee in India, where widows throw themselves on their husbands funeral pyres.

When the British took control of India, should they tolerate suttee, even without the woman's consent? I think that if you value human life, you have to protect the distraught widows from killing themselves.

[Spiffor]

Obiwan :

No, I don't think the British should have forced the end of Suttee if the women wanted it. However, if the women turned to the Brits to end this barbaric practice, I'd have been all for it.

However, there's a difference between changing some rules in a conquered territory and attacking a country for the sake of morals.

As the Brits were already in India, and prepared to stay long, minor tweaks in the traditions of the population were probably practicable.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Nah, just the US.

1 point for Lord Merciless.

[Ben Kenobi]

As the Brits were already in India, and prepared to stay long, minor tweaks in the traditions of the population were probably practicable.

Under cultural relativism, or are you importing other values, such as liberal democracy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Remember all moral values are supposed to be equivalent, so why should your nation take precedence over another?

Relativism, for all it's faults, cannot sanction Might makes right.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

Relativism cannot sanction any moral value over any others since because of it morality becomes a mere matter of taste.

What this means is that you can't offer any compelling objective or intersubjective reasons to anyone else to stop them doing anything. So what happens is that we have no way of speaking truth to power and power then does whatever it likes (or whatever it can get away with).

That's all I meant to say.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Under cultural relativism, or are you importing other values, such as liberal democracy.

I have no problem with importing other values. I have a problem with forcing these values on a reluctant population. That's wholly different.

If Indian women, thanks to the prolonged contact with the English, came to think of Suttee as a barbaric tradition, I'd have been very glad of it. If the English had forbidden suttee and done punishments about it despite the willingness of these women to commit suicide, I'd have been against.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have no problem with importing other values.

Sorry, import has a second meaning in English.

You can import values into the discussion, not just values across the ocean.

To be consistent in Cultural Relativism, you cannot favour liberal democracy, regardless of your personal inclinations.

Agathon:

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
To be consistent in Cultural Relativism, you cannot favour liberal democracy, regardless of your personal inclinations.

I am not a big cultural relativist, and I certainly don't belong to the "cultural left" decried in the article. As per my previous posts, I'm all for having (well backed) judgments over other cultures. However, I don't think action should be taken on these other cultures unless there is a push for change within it.

I am not opposed with helping the push for change to happen, through exposure to your own culture. However, this exposure must neither be forceful nor overwhelming : it has to leave a choice in the target culture : either change their ways in the light of foreign cultures, or keep theirs.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is that your counterargument?

No. I just grow weary of your one line posts that are completely irrelevent to the topic you respond to.

Besides, not all communists are marxists.

The comment applies just as well, if not more so, to Trotskyists.

[Giant_Squid]

Azazel:

But why? you're just judging him according to your postulates, who told you that your ethics are correct and his are wrong? you're an evil and close-minded person.

You're assuming that just because something is subjective it doesn't exist. Metaphor: in the "real" relativism, Einstein's theory of relativity, he proves conclusively that speed, as classically conceived of, does not exist and is a subjective perception. Everyone agrees with Einstein on this. However, if you were to go 90 down the freeway and tell the policeman it's all right because speed is a subjective concept, I highly doubt you'd get out of a ticket. (note that this is a metaphor, and I'm not saying in the least that the situations are exactly alike)

My morality is entirely subjective. I like it because it's elegant, it's well-thought-out, it contains no contradictions, it accords with the natural and inbuilt views I have on the subject, and it presents a clear goal and leads towards it. I believe the deontological position contains several logical errors, which I hope to point out on that thread. If I turn out to be right and can prove it, then people can still hold it if they really want, but holding it will be inconsistent with logic, which is something most people wish to be consistent with, as well as inconsistent with some of the most deeply rooted human beliefs on morality.

You see? Now I know that there are almost no cultures that are so velhemently anti-utilitarian, but, many of them are anti-utilitarian. Why is it wrong to oppose, fight and resist them? Why is it wrong to decry them as things that should pass from this world?

I believe that the whole argument about not wanting to force stuff on cultures against their will is based on the desire not to want the people in these cultures to be unhappy (which I would sure be if someone else forced their culture on me). That being said, it's entirely utilitarian to not do so, unless the people in this culture hate the culture and want to change, in which case it's hardly forcing, is it?

I agree with that. I am a Utilitarian, it is my postulate, to us GS's phrase, however I am not objective, therefore I cannot say that it is better, merely that I believe it is.

I'm not sure if that's such a "merely". Take the postulates of geometry. Considered in isolation, any set of postulates are equally good. We have the standard Euclidean postulates, which work great. We have the Riemannian ones, which work well too. Or we can make up totally random and absurd postulates like that every straight line intersects itself exactly seven and a half times. Since these are postulates, none of them can be necessarily better than the others, but if we start working with that last one, we'll run into major contradictions, and we usually use an unspoken rule that logical contradictions are bad. If we use Riemannian, we get a consistent system, BUT we kind of already knew what we were aiming for (at least if we were aiming for something that described the world well enough to build a pyramid or something) and this isn't it. Even though a system may work right, if it tells us that we can never make a decent pair of parallel lines then it's never going to be helpful in engineering. So we keep the Euclidean postulates, which as postulates aren't any superior to the others, because we happen to like where they lead.

With morality, I already know what I want, in an entirely irrational sense - I want the world to be a better place in which to live. I could just as well want the world to be a worse place to live or a place with more things colored purple, but I don't hold those desires and see no reason to find logical systems that work on those principles.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am not opposed with helping the push for change to happen, through exposure to your own culture. However, this exposure must neither be forceful nor overwhelming : it has to leave a choice in the target culture : either change their ways in the light of foreign cultures, or keep theirs.

I can't agree. You have to look at power and material relations between people. The Wahhabist Imam who says keeping women barefoot and pregnant and the Southern Baptist Preacher who says gays should be punished will often claim they have a right to their culture/religion/heritage/whatever. Most of the time, the tradition being defended is the very sort of thing that keeps a group of *******s in charge and keeps the regular people oppressed. This is why I shed no tears for the loss of the Taliban. Good ****ing riddance. (Which is not to say I like what's going on in Afghanistan right now - the US did its usual **** job of managing the peace.)

Oh, and a Marxist would never be a cultural relativist. We recognize a bad power structure when we see it. (BTW, Marxisim started in the west - so it can't be anti-Western. Duh! But we welcome the input of other cultures. Just because the west has some good ideas doesn't mean it has a monopoly.)

The left - the real left - is all for feminism, gay rights, equal rights, material distributional justice (Marixist or not) and keeping the church as far away from the state as possible. These are positive values and often conflict with the culture of non-western and western areas. That article is just another product of a right wing idiot tilting at strawmen.

The question on the left is how to accommodate different attidudes without riding roughshod over other cultures without compromising our quest for equality.

[St Leo]

Is it just me or does this Cultural Left sound a lot like the NeoCons?

[DinoDoc]

It's just you.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by St Leo
Is it just me or does this Cultural Left sound a lot like the NeoCons?

Gee, are you saying the Taliban didn't need a spanking? Besides Bush wants to bring them back. Guess he figures as long as the Religious Right (aka the US branch of the Taliban) likes him so much ...

Besides, NeoCons want to preserve sodomy laws because "communities have a right to impose their own sexual morality" or something like that. NeoCons also want to preserve the right of mousy housewives everywhere to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. NeoCons also want to protect the rights of African Americans to pick cotton. The NeoCons are a cultural heritage that should be run roughshod over.

[Dr Strangelove]

Which cultural lefties eschew rendering judgements? AFAIK most of them are somewhat opinionated and rather judgemental.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lung

1.) extreme relativism,

Neither I nor anyone of my leftist friends that I know is a moral relativist. Imran, a conservative, is, however. Go figure.

2.) hostility to traditional Western culture, and,

Blanket generalization. What is the definition of Western "culture?" I, for one, love the cultural institutions of the West above all others. There's a difference between wanting to change what are anachronistic and bigoted societal values and despising a culture.

I hate, say, Aztec culture, though, because it was murderous.

3.) the view that academia, scholarship, education, science, culture and the arts are nothing but weapons for use in political and ideological warfare.

Again, who says? I revere all of the things above for what they are, not how I can use them. It's also contradictory to no. 2. How could leftists be using culture and the arts as a weapon for their beliefs, if their beliefs involve hating that culture?

Generalized horsehockey.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's a difference between wanting to change what are anachronistic and bigoted societal values and despising a culture.

Since you seem the expert, which values in Western society are anachronistic and bigoted?

[Lung]

It looks like Lung has created a monster!

I can't say i agree with it entirely, just that it highlighted the folly of taking moral relativism to the extreme. Sure, he tends to rant, but "the cultural left", as he puts it, certainly seems to be losing ground to the rise in religious fervour (to varying degrees in Islam and christianity).

As much as i think most lefties are hypocritical elitists, if they balance out the loonies on the right, then they're doing something worthwhile. However, poor me in the middle (like the silent majority) just wants to live in peace, while extremists everywhere keep trying to impede me

My grandmother was right - people just shouldn't stick their noses into other people's business. She never mentioned governments, churches, business, etcetera particularly, but i think it applies to the lot of them.