Cultural Relativism vs. Human Rights

[Antonio the Sixth]

Though I agree with the second statement in saying that culture is not intrinsically worthy of respect, I acknowledge that morality is ultimately a human invention, with nothing objective about it.

So, then, I support whatever values are most beneficial to human progress.

     I would agree with this, except that I'd replace "progress" with "freedom".

Progress and freedom are intrinsically linked. Human progress is the liberation of mankind from his oppression of himself.

Of course, it's not surprising to see a libertarian value "freedom" (or rather their ridiculously shallow notion of freedom) over progress.

     Progress can be a very dehumanizing notion. What I have seen justified in the name of progress does not allow me to hold to lionizing it as some sort of great virtue.

Every notion can be dehumanizing if one starts caring more about a utopia than about the fate of human beings. Your freedom even more so than others.

     Progress is at its most honest a euphemism for "what I want to see happen". The idea plays on the positive connotations of the word to give it favorable branding. I (and anyone else) can claim to believe in a form of progress that would be altogether different from your form of progress. I might posit that there is little difference between freedom and progress. Then why do you care which word I use?

Of course our idea of progress is based on our philosophical perspective and moral values. What's wrong with that? We can debate at length what constitutes progress and what doesn't, and the fact we see it differently doesn't mean that we are equally right and that the concept is meaningless.

The core significance of the term "progress" lies in the belief in the possibility (and indeed, the actuality) of humanity's betterment through a change from the present customs, mentalities or material situation. One can very well disagree with this claim, and argue instead that humanity's role is to preserve inherited traditions and ways of life (thus being a conservative) or even to return to previous traditions and ways of life (being a reactionary).

Also, I would posit that identifying progress with one single value (were it "freedom", "equality", or anything else) is a pretty narrow perspective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Though I agree with the second statement in saying that culture is not intrinsically worthy of respect, I acknowledge that morality is ultimately a human invention, with nothing objective about it.

So, then, I support whatever values are most beneficial to human progress.

     I would agree with this, except that I'd replace "progress" with "freedom".

Progress and freedom are intrinsically linked. Human progress is the liberation of mankind from his oppression of himself.

Of course, it's not surprising to see a libertarian value "freedom" (or rather their ridiculously shallow notion of freedom) over progress.

     Progress can be a very dehumanizing notion. What I have seen justified in the name of progress does not allow me to hold to lionizing it as some sort of great virtue.

Every notion can be dehumanizing if one starts caring more about a utopia than about the fate of human beings. Your freedom even more so than others.

     Progress is at its most honest a euphemism for "what I want to see happen". The idea plays on the positive connotations of the word to give it favorable branding. I (and anyone else) can claim to believe in a form of progress that would be altogether different from your form of progress. I might posit that there is little difference between freedom and progress. Then why do you care which word I use?

Of course our idea of progress is based on our philosophical perspective and moral values. What's wrong with that? We can debate at length what constitutes progress and what doesn't, and the fact we see it differently doesn't mean that we are equally right and that the concept is meaningless.

The core significance of the term "progress" lies in the belief in the possibility (and indeed, the actuality) of humanity's betterment through a change from the present customs, mentalities or material situation. One can very well disagree with this claim, and argue instead that humanity's role is to preserve inherited traditions and ways of life (thus being a conservative) or even to return to previous traditions and ways of life (being a reactionary).

Also, I would posit that identifying progress with one single value (were it "freedom", "equality", or anything else) is a pretty narrow perspective.

     The impression that I had was that progress is a rather nebulous term. One can speak of progress towards a project goal (which is something that is normal for one to support), or progress towards a greater technological sophistication (which is typically a good thing in practice, though it becomes quite horrible when pursued as an end goal).

     Ultimately, I was hoping to get some elucidation there, because progress carries some very different senses that I would need to be elucidated. You attacked me for valuing "freedom" over "progress", which only makes sense if I claimed to be a liberal or a leftist (which I don't) or if I had meant (or you thought I had meant) "progress" in the sense of approaching a project goal, which would indicate that I was talking in utopian terms.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think there can be a more philosophical and abstract vision of progress, which does not necessarily entail a narrowly defined project goal, but rather a broad idea of improving the human condition. The way one defines progress then depends on what political and moral ideals they hold dear. Of course, if you value freedom over everything else, you are going to identify progress with greater. But, unless you think greater freedom is always and in any possible circumstance a good thing (which is an incredibly naive position to have), you should not replace progress with freedom as a goal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I see what you mean, and as one more thing, I could identify "freedom" in the broader sense that you intend to identify "progress"; maybe anti-trust laws make people more free by allowing for a greater freedom of choice, and thus I could support those for the sake of promoting greater freedom. These are words that represent two ideas with complex pasts. I don't think it is particularly enlightening to distill the usage of the word "freedom" into its anarchistic sense.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I feel like noting here that in 1947 the American Anthropological Association (hardly a bastion of reactionary thought then or now... to put it mildly) rejected the UN Declaration of Human Rights on culturally relativistic grounds. Even now though the wider concept of Human Rights has since been accepted, the relationship between the two is still not always as straightforward as could be imagined.

[barfbag]

I feel like noting here that in 1947 the American Anthropological Association (hardly a bastion of reactionary thought then or now... to put it mildly) rejected the UN Declaration of Human Rights on culturally relativistic grounds. Even now though the wider concept of Human Rights has since been accepted, the relationship between the two is still not always as straightforward as could be imagined.

It doesn't surprise me that the UN tried to declare human rights on culturally relativistic grounds. That's about the most worthless organization on our planet. I think the recycling club at the college I graduated from has more relevance in the world. The U.N. never ceases to amaze me with their lack of decisiveness and ethics. It would be nice to see them do something for once.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I feel like noting here that in 1947 the American Anthropological Association (hardly a bastion of reactionary thought then or now... to put it mildly) rejected the UN Declaration of Human Rights on culturally relativistic grounds. Even now though the wider concept of Human Rights has since been accepted, the relationship between the two is still not always as straightforward as could be imagined.

It doesn't surprise me that the UN tried to declare human rights on culturally relativistic grounds. That's about the most worthless organization on our planet. I think the recycling club at the college I graduated from has more relevance in the world. The U.N. never ceases to amaze me with their lack of decisiveness and ethics. It would be nice to see them do something for once.

No you misunderstand me. It was the AAA not the UN who were arguing that the declaration was not relativistic enough.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 2.  And ROFL to all the pro-choicers who give that answer.

[barfbag]

Option 2.  And ROFL to all the pro-choicers who give that answer.

Me too and I'm surprised that more people on here didn't choose option 1. All option 1 comes down to is "I'm ok, you're ok."

[morgieb]

Customs is no excuse for hating humans.