On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> Military aggression is also a part of our heritage -
> starting with the Indian wars and continuing to the
> present day.
>
> Since these actions are elements of our culture and
> acceptable to many millions of Americans, should we
> take it all in stride and accept it as part of life's
> rich tapestry?
You're missing my point. Obviously we have our moral standards. They are crucial to our way of life, and activities in our society that contradict our own standards are bad. I'm talking about using our standards to criticize and devalue people in other societies.
> Cultural relativism is a trap. Like many fuzzy headed
> ideas, it starts with a kernel of truth - you should
> not impose your values on others - winds its way
> through shadow haunted woods and ends up in murky
> territory where even the worst actions, so long as
> they're explained away as being a part of someone's
> 'culture', are palatable.
>
> Some things are just wrong because people get hurt or
> killed or are forced to live truncated lives against
> their will.
>
> This should be considered incontrovertible.
You're not getting my point. I agree with your moral position and wholeheartedly endorse it. The "should" there give it away, though: it would be nice if our position was incontrovertible, that it was agreed on by all people in all times, but it just isn't.
My god, even in the U. S. people don't live up to this! You and I think the horrors in capitalist exploitation are wrong, that it "truncates lives against their will", but it doesn't matter how much we wish it were so, most people in our society don't buy it: capitalism is consistent with their moral tenets.
What's fuzzy-minded is not cultural relativism; it's the naive faith that all intelligent people will have the same moral beliefs, regardless of social contingencies.
Miles