Cultural dominance

[Fiona]

You cultural imperialist, you

[dj_venom]

The end justifies the means .

Not really, but having high morale gets you extremely far, stacks of surveys have shown the benefit of positive thinking.

[Aegis]

Can we try to keep this thread clear of spam? I know it doesn't have that lovely little title, but it shouldn't always have to have it.

[Fiona]

Sorry Aegis. I didn't really intend spam. I refer back to my original post. DJ's comments (whether serious or not) illustrate the fact that both attitudes are culture. I seriously think it is not easy to deal with these issues. There is a story from the days of the British Raj which puts it in a nutshell. One of the British adminstration is said to have been dealing with complaints from local leaders about actions he had ordered. It ended. " Your custom is to burn your widows. We have a custom too. We hang you for it". Leaving aside the fact that the British shouldn't have been there in the first place there is an important point there. Even with good intentions it is not simple to resolve where cultural respect starts and finishes. It is very cosy to think there are no "real" differences and therefore we can find a way through situations such as I outlined to Phreddie above. It isn't like that at all. And to me it doesn't matter whether it is innate or not - it's a profoundly moral problem.

[VonDondu]

When I read the title and first sentence of this message thread (concerning an American television program that is seen worldwide), I expected this thread to be about American cultural dominance in the world. Then I realized that this thread is about a TV show in which humans try to impose their own values onto fictional aliens.

First of all, what do you expect from a TV program? A program written for a TV audience is pretty low-brow, and you can't expect it to reflect a sophisticated view of the world or sensitivity to ANYONE'S culural values. Science fiction writers can't even get science right, and Hollywood producers only care about ratings.

Second of all, given the fact that it was written by humans, of course human values would take precedence over the values of fictional aliens.

We're talking about a story here. Good stories have a point of view and a message. Clearly, the message in this particular story is, "Where there's life, there's hope, and we should fight until the end." I don't consider that to be cultural arrogance; I consider it to be the point of view of a writer. Is it truly representative of general human attitudes? I don't know. But it seems to be an assumption on your part, CM, and I don't think you've made the case for it. Prove to me that TV shows reflect reality, and maybe I won't giggle when you start making an argument by telling us what you saw on TV.

[dj_venom]

Well I have no problems with people doing their own customs.

But if him doing something non-essential will jepordise others, then perhaps that should not be done. I am in no way saying that the custom is wrong and foolish, I am merely saying that in the interests of the greater good, the human was in the right.

It comes back to think of others, because I think that's being selfish.

And trust me, I'm from Aus. I've often argued against people who think against the Indigenous Australian's customs.

[CM]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

When I read the title and first sentence of this message thread (concerning an American television program that is seen worldwide), I expected this thread to be about American cultural dominance in the world. Then I realized that this thread is about a TV show in which humans try to impose their own values onto fictional aliens.

First of all, what do you expect from a TV program? A program written for a TV audience is pretty low-brow, and you can't expect it to reflect a sophistocated view of the world or sensitivity to ANYONE'S culural values. Science fiction writers can't even get science right, and Hollywood producers only care about ratings.

Second of all, given the fact that it was written by humans, of course human values would take precedence over the values of fictional aliens.

We're talking about a story here. Good stories have a point of view and a message. Clearly, the message in this particular story is, "Where there's life, there's hope, and we should fight until the end." I don't consider that to be cultural arrogance; I consider it to be the point of view of a writer. Is it truly representative of general human attitudes? I don't know. But it seems to be an assumption on your part, CM, and I don't think you've made the case for it. Prove to me that TV shows reflect reality, and maybe I won't giggle when you start making an argument by telling us what you saw on TV.

Ah the beauty of assumptions Actually, the thought process was started by the TV show but the discussion was something very different all together. As highlighted in my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and my 2nd post and 3rd posts. Because this concept of one culture holding some sort of notion of what is right and wrong and imposing it is extremely dominant in all forms of media just not "hollywood". Be it domestic tv shows, news papers, commercials or just plain old CNN/BBC. Through out history societies have imposed their own cultural values on the world. Be it the french with their notion of bring civilization to Africa or the Muslims with bringing morality to the world. The more I look at examples from history even modern day politics i have yet to find one nation state (Which is only a subset of any dominant cultural system) that does not do this. Even Norway one of the most "peace process orientated" nations on the planet does still impose tied aid and other such constraints on aid they establish.

[Lazarus]

The UN is going to make your culture safe.

[C Elegans]

I'm running experiments today and tomorrow so I will not be able to answer in detail until tomorrow night or Thursday, but one fundamental question is what you Fas actually assumpts.

Which of your two assumptions do you want me to reply to?

I responded to the assumptions you stated above that you hold:

"1. All humans feel their culture and its values are superior to those of others.
2. That on specific issues like mortality, sexuality, religion in life and others they feel they are "right" and all views that do not agree with their point of view is/are wrong and they impose these views on other people/societies/cultures."

Now, you respond by posing a new statement:

Originally Posted by CM

LOL. CE if you can show me a culture which does not at any point on any subject not denote that it has superior values and has the right way of doing things, compared to another culture i will eat a hat!

A culture that does not on any point on any subject not denote that it has superior values and has the right way of doing things is not equal to a culture that feel their culture and values are superior in general (1% is not the same as 100%), or feel it is superior in "mortality, sexuality, religion in life" and therefore impose their own views on others. For instance, you could think your own culture is superior in one respect and a different culture is superior in another respect. You could also think your own culture is superior without feeling the need to impose its' norms on others. The possible combinations are many.
Since you seem to have changed the definition, and since I have limited time I'd like to know which of your two definitions you'd like me to reply to.

Originally Posted by Fiona

It is very cosy to think there are no "real" differences and therefore we can find a way through situations such as I outlined to Phreddie above. It isn't like that at all. And to me it doesn't matter whether it is innate or not - it's a profoundly moral problem.

In my opinion it matters to all moral problems whether a behaviour is "innate" in the sense genetically determinated, or not. In fact, that a behaviour is not "innate" in this sense is generally viewed as a prerequisite for even applying moral questions to a phenomenon. Is the eagle immoral for killing the mouse? Is the eagle immoral for not being vegetarian? Is the eagle's offspring immoral for killing each other so that only one, the biggest and strongest, will survive? Usually we answer no to all these questions, since the eagle does not, as far as we know, have a consciousness that allows for alternatives or even moral questioning.

Is the human immoral for killing a mouse? For killing another human being? For not being vegetarian? This is far more complicated since humans do have choices. It is however not as simple as humans having 100% free will and all other species have 0%. If a behaviour is predetermined in humans, like I understand Fas suggests cultural centricity is? If a behaviour is 80% genetically determined, 10% culturally determined and 10% individual choice?

Moral problems must be viewed differently depending on the degree of freedom of choice. Unless we judge the starving child who steals for survival as equal to the middle-class thief who steals items simple because he or she wants them without paying for them.

[CM]

CE the answer was to your original question, which was:

How do you explain that there are cultures that do not fit into these behaviour patterns?

My response was to that question. I did not change the definition, rather I only answered a question which you brought up which was not related to my assumptions. Will await your response on friday.

[Cuchulain82]

Isn't this really just a question of moral/societal reletivism vs. absolutism?

[CM]

I honestly I do not know. If i read your sentence as normal english then yes it is. However if this a theory, then i am not familiar with it so i can't really say if this conversation applies.

[Cuchulain82]

It is both a normal sentence and a sentence that has to do with theories. (You can let your guard down Fas; I'm not trying to sucker you into some rhetorical shouting match)

I ask because it seems like you are talking about the tension between the conflicting ideas that:

(a) values are relative. Culture determines values and if, for example, culture A celebrates religion by fasting, then culture B is in no position to judge. The alternative is

(b) some sort of absolute belief. The idea here is that there are certain rights that, due to your very existance as human, you are guaranteed. Usually these rights are at least the right to freedom from discrimination based on gender, sex, race, profession, social status, etc.

(As a side note, I would like to mention that you, Fas, by working for the UN, would appear to be endorsing option B, as the UN is the creator of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just food for thought...)

[VonDondu]

I suspect that a belief in our own infallibility is a survival trait. What if we didn't believe that our own perceptions were true? What if we always questioned our own beliefs? We would be paralyzed, or our competition would surpass us. If you're a member of species that has a highly developed brain, then it's probably in your nature to feel that you are always right.

If you put a bunch of people who are naturally inclined to believe that they are always right into a complex, highly developed social order, people will try to impose their beliefs on others, just as they will try to impose their will on others. They go hand in hand.

I learned all this by watching television, of course.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

In my opinion it matters to all moral problems whether a behaviour is "innate" in the sense genetically determinated, or not. In fact, that a behaviour is not "innate" in this sense is generally viewed as a prerequisite for even applying moral questions to a phenomenon. Is the eagle immoral for killing the mouse? Is the eagle immoral for not being vegetarian? Is the eagle's offspring immoral for killing each other so that only one, the biggest and strongest, will survive? Usually we answer no to all these questions, since the eagle does not, as far as we know, have a consciousness that allows for alternatives or even moral questioning.

I don't really undestand this. There can be no moral problem if a behaviour is wholly "determined", in any sense. It might be determined genetically, or by drugs, or by physics. There is behaviour which appears to be innate but which is altered by teaching (for example all children, so far as I know, are irresponsible in their toiletting. That seems to make it innate. It doesn't make it unchangeable).That is why I said I did not care if it was innate. Innate and determined are not synonymous, and this is one ambiguity which is confusing this discussion.

I think that you accept that our behaviour towards other cultures is not determined, since you point to differences between groups and between individuals.( I do not think that answers whether it is innate or not.) Where I think we differ is in the meaning of that conclusion. To me, trying to put a percentage on free will is like trying to put a percentage on pregnancy. Either you are pregnant or you are not; either you have a choice or you don't. If I once accept that a particular behaviour allows of choice (and in this case I do) then all of the questions can be approached morally. That does not preclude a scientific approach, but it is not subsumed by such an approach.

Morality does not apply to animals. We don't know to what extent they have choices, since they cannot tell us. The evidence from behaviour may suggest they have no choice. But I don't know if there are eagle's offspring who decide not to kill, and therefore die in the circumstances you describe. I don't really see how that helps us. And it may be that animals vary in the areas of choice they have and in how they excercise that choice.

Is the human immoral for killing a mouse? For killing another human being? For not being vegetarian? This is far more complicated since humans do have choices.

In each of the examples you quote the human being has free will. I do not see any complication related to degrees of determination, for the reasons I have given above.

Moral problems must be viewed differently depending on the degree of freedom of choice. Unless we judge the starving child who steals for survival as equal to the middle-class thief who steals items simple because he or she wants them without paying for them.

Both the starving child and the middle class thief have free will, and can choose to steal or not. They do not have different levels of freedom of choice as regards the stealing How the moral question is judged varies with such things as mitigating circumstances. Perhaps we are using the words "freedom of choice" to mean more than one thing?