Showing posts with label Cultural Relativism. Social Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural Relativism. Social Culture. Show all posts

Saturday, September 26, 2009

How do we reconcile feminism and cultural relativism(Yahoo Answers)

I thought it would be interesting to have a look at the internet perspective and so we would have a look at the "average public response" to a very serious question. There really is no right or wrong answer. I have only posted this as I enjoyed this public forum, and the wide array of opinion that was posed. So I hope that you read and enjoy what was posted at Yahoo questions and answers!

How do we reconcile feminism and cultural relativism?

They are both two different moral theories and in many cases contradict each other. How can we justify using one over the other?
For example, feminists, under their moral theories, would state that it is immoral to, for example, perform female genital mutilation or force women to cover themselves, since this is against their theory and is taking away womens' rights. Cultural relativists would say that each moral theory depends on a certain culture, so it would be ethical to, in this case, perform female genital mutilation or make women cover themselves, because in these respective cultures it is morally right or allowed to do so.
What are your views on this?
Thanks!
  • 1 year ago

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

In the US in the ante-bellum South, it was culturally acceptable to own another human being, ie. slavery. Cultural relativity would argue that therefore slavery is fine, because the culture, and, in fact the religion supported it.
There are universal wrongs. Owning another human being, or mutilating the body of another human being is wrong. Genital mutilation is not even done in a medical setting. Human rights treaties have existed since WWII, when it was culturally acceptable in Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews.
Cultural relativity was never propounded to protect anyone abusing other humans in the past, and as a theory it should be dispensed with.
  • 1 year ago

Cultural relativism is Not the same as moral relativism. Cultural relativism is the basic principle that you have to understand beliefs and values and practises in the context of the culture they are formed in.

So the short answer to your question is that there is no conflict between feminism and cultural relativism. By the definitions of both terms.

And yes, saying that women are equal human beings with human rights and freedoms Does conflict with values and practises of many cultures. It conflicted with European and American Western cultural values and practises not very long ago.

You can't reconcile a basic belief that women are equal human beings with a belief that a culture's values and practises that violate that basic belief are legitimate. If women are exploited and oppressed by a culture, than who benefits from it? Clearly not 1/2 the population in that culture!
  • 1 year ago

Human rights abuses are human rights abuses. It really isn't debatable that genitle mutilation is anything other than, well, mutilation. Aside from the pain at the time, it makes a woman unable to enjoy sex. As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, and every culture is, in general, against it, even if almost every culture (including ours) has blind spots. Just as we try to reveal our own blind spots concerning lapses in human rights and violence, it's right to call out those in others, even if we can't bring about change there.

As for covering themselves, I wouldn't want to live that way, but it isn't physical maiming, so I don't think it belongs in the same category.

But it's important to note that both these practices are controversial even in their own environments. Many people who belong to those cultures dont' accept them, so they aren't considered "right" by everyone.
  • 1 year ago

My view is that whatever happens it must be the person's own choice, not forced upon them by convention. If they choose to follow the convention of their own free will, fine. If not, no one should be able to force it upon them.
  • 1 year ago

Anyone who has studied philosophy can tell you that cultural relativism is a sham. Seriously, it's an insane position to hold, and fundementally self-contradictory.
  • 1 year ago

I think most feminists would agree that basic human rights override cultural standards. Freedom from torture is one of those rights.
  • 1 year ago
Very different perspectives. So you know, the first response was chosen by the voters as the best response. I hope you enjoyed this post.

William:)

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Human Rights and The Debate Between Universalism and Cultural Relativism

hrdebate.pdf (application/pdf Object)

I stumbled upon a scholarly analysis of the ongoing debate from a perspective in which I knew was going to be biased in some way or another from other than a"western" notion of human rights and cultural relativism. This is good however, to look at other perspectives to enhance our own perspectives and gain better insight into any subject regardless of what it is you are studying or trying to gain knowledge of. Trust me on that. Anyway I just wanted to post that a conference was held in Vienna in 1993, to discuss the Universalism of Human Rights and the notion of cultural relativism. The nation-states invited were China, Syria, and Iran.

Immediately, from a "western" viewpoint what do you think were going to be the results of the analysis? Should I even have to tell you? Probably not by now right? Of course not. Either way I will just summarize a bit of the conclusions:

"At the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights and put forward the following conclusions:
1. Human Rights as currently defined are not universal but based on Western morality.
2. They should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in disregard of those societies’ historical and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong."

Furthermore:

"3.they contend that the imposition of one’s standard on another culture is unjust and imperialist in nature."

And:
"Relativism as linked to culture will appear later thanks to the work of anthropologists who empirically demonstrated that there exist in the world many different cultures, each equally worthy. However, International Law has only recently begun to tackle the issue of cultural relativism, which first emerged in a 1971 book by Adda Bozeman entitled The Future of Law in a Multicultural World. The central themes of the book are as follows:
1. There exist profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam.
2. In order to fully understand a culture, one must be a product of that culture.
3. Even if a culture were to borrow a concept from another culture, that concept’s meaning would be filtered through the first culture’s unique linguistic-conceptual culture.
4. There can be no universal meaning to a moral value.
5. A universal text on values is a futile exercise.
Theoretically speaking, the debate then is inscribed on a spectrum ranging from radical universalism that disallows any derogation from certain standards to radical relativism which explains culture as the sole source of the validity of a moral value."

In other words, you might as well just disregard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafted in 1948 as being a meaningful piece of human rights legislation altogether, right? These are just some of the conclusions of the Vienna meeting in 1993, however all of the roads basically led in the same direction. I am a proponent of the UDHR of 1948, so of course I disagree with the outcome and the conclusions I just wanted to represent to you the major philosophical differences that exist in our world today, with countries in which we have to make major dealings with, on a globally significant, day to day basis. This is of course culturally relative to everyone.

William

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Cultural Collision, Immoral Relativism?

Stageleft: life on the left side » Hyper-Partisan Mental Gymnastics

Very recently it has been discovered/all edged and I do not have the full details, but I am going to blog about this story as it has already become pronounced here on the internet from "reliable" Canadian military sources" which can be traced if you follow the link provided by the link I give you for this post. Basically, what I would like to say is that the publisher in the blog that I posted cannot understand how in the name of cultural relativism, can the leftist leaning cultural relativistic Canadian government, judge and criticize the Afghan "tradition" of having male prostitution even with young men 15 to 16 years of age?

It is well known that in Canada, not that long ago, that there were laws on the books that young people as young as 15 years old were able to have intimate relations. Of course this has changed since then.

The long and short however, is that even in the name of cultural relativism, how can this be happening? Our American men and women are fighting a war in Afghan for people that have "traditions" that include male prostitution that is legal at the age of 15 yrs? What are these people thinking? There is no such thing as human rights or wrongs in there vocabulary.

William

Friday, September 18, 2009

Cultural Relativism, Absolute Truth? or Absolute Statement?

Cultural Relativism

To me this is an excellent philosophical approach to a logical explanation that cultural relativism is not a plausible theory through its own believe system. Of course its up to the reader to decide if they "buy" this argument. Indeed it is rather convincing indeed! However, I am going to quote the most convincing argument and leave it at that:

"
Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultural views are equally valid. However, if you test this position under general rules of logic, you soon discover that relativism is illogical and self-defeating. If relativism is true and all points of view are true, then the assertion that relativism is false, is true. Is this contradictory? Yes. Is truth contradictory? No.

Relativists believe that all truth is relative. Therefore, the statement, "All truth is relative," would be absolutely true. If this statement is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement is false.

Relativists declare that "there are no absolute truths." However, this is an absolute statement, which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and the statement is false.

According to the relativist position, I can have my own version of truth. Therefore, a truth for me is that relativism is false. Based on the relativistic rules, I have just established that relativism is false. Of course, the relativist will say "no" to my logic, but then what is true for me is not really true, and, again, I have proven the philosophy of relativism false.

Give it some thought…"

I am giving it some thought. Is there a difference between an absolute "statement" and an "absolute truth"? First you have to ask yourself if this wins the argument! I have never claimed to be a relativist. Do I believe he has proven something false? I am unsure if he has. However I have made assertions that not everyone can be absolutely right and that not everyone can be absolutely wrong. Can there be any absolutes? Are there any absolute truths beyond a shadow of a doubt? This must be measured in terms of your own cultural belief system. I will always place human rights in front of cultural relativism. However, my philosophy regarding absolutes remains my own philosophy. I am not saying this makes me a relativist. I am just saying that how can half of the world be wrong about one particular matter or the other, and the rest of the world be right about the same particular matter, and whom is to say who is correct? This is a thinking man and woman's blog. I am sure that most of you have decided that by now.

William

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

This is culture again;Some Indonesian adulterers "to be stoned"

Some Indonesian adulterers 'to be stoned' | Breaking News | News.com.au

Another amazing example how cultural relativism is likely to "trump" global human rights legislation once again! The Australian based paper covered the news regarding the "staunch" Muslim legislation:
"INDONESIA'S staunchly Muslim Aceh province is set to enforce a strict form of Islamic criminal law, including stoning to death married adulterers, a lawmaker says.

"Unmarried people who commit adultery will be caned one hundred times and married persons will be stoned to death," Raihan Iskandar, a provincial lawmaker from the Islamic-based Prosperous Justice Party, said.

Aceh, where separatists had been fighting the Indonesian government since 1976 until a peace deal in 2005, has so far only partially adopted sharia law, which requires modest Muslim dress codes, mandatory prayers five times a day, fasting and the giving of alms to the poor.

Sharia was implemented under a broad autonomy package granted by the central government in 2001 to pacify the hard-line Muslim region's demand for independence.

"This bill only focuses on ethical issues which include consumption of alcohol, gambling, committing adultery and raping," Iskandar said.


This is quite remarkable in a matter of speaking, when compared with Sharia law, which is often criticized by the "west" and other regions globally as being "much to rigid" with its hard-line views, especially regarding the treatment of women. Now imagine the treatment you get if you commit adultery! If your not married you get a serious "caning", but how is that adultery anyways? Isn't that just having sex? Anyways, don't you have to be married to commit adultery? However if your married, you get stoned literally to death? You know that Human Rights groups all over the world are going to have a "field-day"with this Aceh province when this gets back to the Human Rights defenders responsible for monitoring that particular region of the world. I can promise you that! Is this a primitive culture practice in anyone's opinion? Please comment me back if you think this is an "archaic" or a "primitive" cultural practice? I think I may conduct a poll in the next day or so. You think I should? Would anyone be willing to participate in it? We will see.


William