On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> Since their explanations are almost certain to be
> built upon some sort of reference to traditions within
> a religious structure - the slave owner, for example,
> expounding on how "in my culture", slave owning is
> quite alright and the expression of a deep
> super-symmetry with cosmic law in which the owner is
> natural master and the slave natural servant - should
> we then say the declaration's ideas are of little or
> no use as a universal standard, given the planet's
> rich diversity of cultural habits and religious
> beliefs?
>
>
> Let's say human rights activists within a country
> (home grown, not Western imports) use the declaration
> as a touchstone as they seek to change their society.
> Are they wrong to do so because some or all of the
> declaration's ideas run counter to various traditions?
Well, I'm ambivalent about the implied moral authority of the UN here. It's like female genital mutilation (or female circumcision): according to our principles, it's gross sexism, and I'm sure it violates the UN declaration. However, it is a practice that most women in these cultures actively participate in (they do the ritual cutting, and they consider it an important rite of passage into female adulthood). Is it morally right for people in Western societies to impose their values and principles on these cultures?
Part of me wants to say yes, sexism is bad, and the mutilation of these women is unconscionable. Another part of me says no, it is moral colonialism for me to impose my moral standards on people who are as committed to their beliefs as I am to mine.
All of this is why moral philosophy drives me bonkers.
Miles