Cultural Relativism

[AnAtheist]

ktm:

What’s your take on free will, then? We have none since we’re just evolving against our will?

I am willing to discuss free will in detail, but that would be off topic right now. Care to open another thread - “Atheists: What do you think of free will?”?

Re your Japanese and Roman examples. These examples are rather weak. I specifically asked for a civilization that permitted murder (killing, whatever you want to call it) as a general rule, by which I mean people have license to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere. As you indicated, though, there really aren’t any.

“Murder” is usually defined as “killing for reasons, not acceptable to the society”. Hence there is by definition no society permitting murder. The point is, if a noble man in our both countries would kill a commoner, it is considered “murder”, in medeval Japan it was not. Ergo, the defintion of murder is depending on the society and not some human-intrinsic, build-in princliple. That my examples do show.

Yet, you claim an aversion to killing is instinctive, that it’s evolved. To me the notion of evolution (as scientists teach it) requires more faith that to say God created/creates the universe, but evolution is for another thread.

Additionally I claim that. As faith is probably a positive trait to you, I take this as a compliment.

You also say that it’s logical for people to get together and establish laws against certain activity. …] If I can rape your wife/mother/sister and get away with it, why shouldn’t I?

I grant you, that religion is more effective than reasoning in preventing crimes, as the perspective of unescapeble persecution intimidates people far better than secular justice. Also, to be open to reasoning and thus abandoning unsocial behaviour one needs a certain level of intelligence and interlectual powers. Not everyone has that. But just because something is more effective doesn’t make it automatically true.

These get to more fundamental questions of whether you believe that life has value, whether you believe there is something like human dignity to consider. And if you do, one must ask why you believe in such ideas. If you see a homeless person living on the street, surely you don’t think to yourself, “Wow, my DNA and evolved brain are telling me to feel compassion for him.” The idea that we are merely automatons being told what to do by evolution just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I know that feelings are “just” neuro-chemical reactions in my brain. So what? I still have them. Yes, atheists do have feelings.

I know a rainbow is just an optical illusion, still I can admire its beauty.

 

[wolpertinger]

ktm:

Re your Japanese and Roman examples. These examples are rather weak. I specifically asked for a civilization that permitted murder (killing, whatever you want to call it) as a general rule, by which I mean people have license to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere. As you indicated, though, there really aren’t any. Yet, you claim an aversion to killing is instinctive, that it’s evolved. To me the notion of evolution (as scientists teach it) requires more faith that to say God created/creates the universe, but evolution is for another thread.

Clearly, the two of you have some unresolved business to take care of.

I’m not personally aware of any culture that condoned unrestricted murder, nor would I expect to find one. From an evolutionary standpoint, any species for which this is true is most likely headed towards extinction. The deeper question, however, is how the definition of ‘murder’ differs between cultures.

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive propositions; it just happens that evolution is the more parsimonous of the two of them. Having said that, this indeed belongs into another thread.

You also say that it’s logical for people to get together and establish laws against certain activity. I would counter it’s not logical to care what other people tell you to do if 1) there is no God and 2) you therefore you have nothing to worry about in the afterlife. Sure, those who enforce laws will come after you when you rape/murder/steal, but if you can defend yourself from them, why not go ahead and do what you wish? What I’m getting at is that as an athiest, how can you view human life as having any value if we are no better than animals? If you have something I want, why shouldn’t I just take it, especially if I can steal it without your knowledge? If I can rape your wife/mother/sister and get away with it, why shouldn’t I?

It is easy to see the benefits of altruism as well as certain proscribed activity, whether you look at it from an evolutionary, sociological, or moralistic point of view.

Please justify claim 1). You and other theists frequently assert it, but never show it to be true. There is no point in addressing 2) until you’ve shown 1).

These get to more fundamental questions of whether you believe that life has value, whether you believe there is something like human dignity to consider. And if you do, one must ask why you believe in such ideas. If you see a homeless person living on the street, surely you don’t think to yourself, “Wow, my DNA and evolved brain are telling me to feel compassion for him.”

I suspect that you commit the fallacy of unstated premises. You are also begging the question (actually, the fallacy of presupposition).

The idea that we are merely automatons being told what to do by evolution just doesn’t make any sense to me.

It seems that you either significantly misunderstand evolution or that you intentionally erected a straw man, only to attack it with the argument from ignorance.

 

[buffalo]

Socrates:

Why are you so convinced that cultural relativism is not a manifestation of free will?

Because some people are “wrong” and some people are “right.”

Cultural relativism is indeed a manifestation of free will, without a properly formed conscience.

 

[ktm]

wolp,

How can you know that God doesn’t exist unless you yourself are omnipotent and omniscient, and therefore God Himself?

I have started another thread called “A Sincere Question for Atheists” which perhaps you could join and give your answer.

And P.S., I do not appreciate the implication I am an ignoramous. You chastised AnAtheist for uncharitable remarks, so please refrain from similar behavior. If you feel I am ignorant about a topic, then explain it. No, I am not an expert on evolution and I did not say it cannot co-exist with creation. This is a rather academic topic anyway, given that you cannot explain to me where the matter to evolve came from in the first place. Please see the other thread.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Sorry I neglected your question over the meaningless little “dispute” we had down below.
I can cite some civilisation he consider certain types of killing as right, which we today would classify as murder. Those societies did not of course:

• Japan in the Tokugawa period. It was ok for a Samurai to kill any non-Samurai without a particular reason.
• Rome in the 1st to 3rd century. Gladiators were killing each other off for sports. That was considered to be entertainment.
  I already explained that in a thread that was unfortunately censored, so I could have posted a link now. Anyway as an abstract: Noone wants to get murdered. It is logical for a group of people to prohibit murder as nobody wants that anyway and to keep the group functioning, i.e. undisturbed by murders. Thus laws against murder have evolved.
  I agree with you that abhorrence of murder is build in into us. It is an instinct. I don’t know the exact English expression, the German one is Tötungshemmung, i.e. “Killing inhibition” towards members of the own species. It can be observed in almost any species. You say, it comes from God, I say, it has evolved.

Catholics say that God has written natural law into our hearts.

**From the Catechism:

1955 **The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature: Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

 

[wolpertinger]

ktm:

wolp,

How can you know that God doesn’t exist unless you yourself are omnipotent and omniscient, and therefore God Himself?

As an atheist, I lack belief in god, but I have never made the positive claim that god doesn’t exist. You are therefore misrepresenting my position.

And P.S., I do not appreciate the implication I am an ignoramous. You chastised AnAtheist for uncharitable remarks, so please refrain from similar behavior.

I have most assuredly not been uncharitable. I have said that you used the argument from ignorance, but I most certainly did not call you an ignoramus. There is a world of difference between the twain. One way to explain the fallacious argument from ignorance is:

I can’t believe how X could possibly be true.
Therefore, X must be false.

Technically and to nitpick my own post, the argument from ignorance is to conclude that something must be true, because it hasn’t been proven wrong.

 

[hlgomez]

Atheist,

In your point of view-- is there such thing as right and wrong, good and evil?

How can you tell whether it’s right or wrong or if it’s good or evil?

Pio

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

After thinking about it for a bit, I guess relativism is a manifestation of free will, but not necessarily the will to choose between good and evil, but the will to usurp God and create one’s own good and evil, which, logically, one would create a certain good and evil so that one would nearly always be “good”.

An analogy; When we drive a car, we know what the speed limit is. We can willfully choose what speed we wish to drive, wheteher that be a legal speed or an unlawful speed. However, relativism throws in a caveat that no matter what the posted speed limit is, WE can decide for ourselves what a safe speed would be, which may be very much unsafe.

By no means did I intend this thread to specifically attack atheism, but just general thoughts about relativism.

 

[wolpertinger]

Andrew Larkoski:

After thinking about it for a bit, I guess relativism is a manifestation of free will, but not necessarily the will to choose between good and evil, but the will to usurp God and create one’s own good and evil, which, logically, one would create a certain good and evil so that one would nearly always be “good”.

This is what I would call the “human condition”. If you put it this way, one could argue that religion itself is grounded in relativism and justified retroactively by special pleading.

I don’t personally believe that relativism is tenable except in a much weakened form. BobCatholic makes a good point.

By no means did I intend this thread to specifically attack atheism, but just general thoughts about relativism.

Hah.

 

[ktm]

hlgomez:

Atheist,

In your point of view-- is there such thing as right and wrong, good and evil?

How can you tell whether it’s right or wrong or if it’s good or evil?

Pio

I don’t speak for atheists obviously, but I would expect a reply something along the lines of good and evil are merely concepts that arose from evolution and culture, or some combination thereof. In other words, everything boils down to the natural and physical. Your evil may be my good because of cultural differences, DNA, society, whatever. You’ve probably noticed signatures and taglines with statements like “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth”. Thus good and evil don’t exist in an absolute way in the atheist’s mind. Do I have it right, wolp?

 

[AnAtheist]

hlgomez:

Atheist,

In your point of view-- is there such thing as right and wrong, good and evil?

How can you tell whether it’s right or wrong or if it’s good or evil?

Pio

Yes, there are such things. And they are defined by the society one lives in.

I can tell from what I learned from my parents, my school education, and most important from a very simple principle: I treat others like I want to be treated.

 

[rossum]

Andrew Larkoski:

An analogy; When we drive a car, we know what the speed limit is. We can willfully choose what speed we wish to drive, wheteher that be a legal speed or an unlawful speed. However, relativism throws in a caveat that no matter what the posted speed limit is, WE can decide for ourselves what a safe speed would be, which may be very much unsafe.

I disagree with your analogy. As I see it something absolute is sufficient within itself and is not affected by anything outside of itself. Something relative is not complete within itself and depends on things outside itself.

My analogy would be for an absolute to be a speed limit set the same for the whole country, with no account taken of whether it is in the middle of a city or on the open road. Relative would be a series of different speed limits set for city street, small country road, Motorway/Freeway etc. taking account of the particular conditions on that bit of road. In either case breaking the spped limit would be illegal. When you talk about “WE can decide for ourselves” that becomes an argument equating to “who has the authority to set moral law” which I see as separate from the argument about whether moral law is itself absolute or relative.

For a moral analogy you might look at rules on killing another human being. An absolute example would be “You shall not kill anyone; there are no circumstances in which it is ever allowed.” A relative example would be “You shall not kill anyone except in the following circumstances…” There is of course a lot of debate over precisely which circumstances allow killing another human being, and different groups have come up with different answers. There is a debate about the legitimacy of the death penalty for instance in which different countries have come up with different answers.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

rossum:

I disagree with your analogy. As I see it something absolute is sufficient within itself and is not affected by anything outside of itself. Something relative is not complete within itself and depends on things outside itself.

My analogy would be for an absolute to be a speed limit set the same for the whole country, with no account taken of whether it is in the middle of a city or on the open road. Relative would be a series of different speed limits set for city street, small country road, Motorway/Freeway etc. taking account of the particular conditions on that bit of road. In either case breaking the spped limit would be illegal. When you talk about “WE can decide for ourselves” that becomes an argument equating to “who has the authority to set moral law” which I see as separate from the argument about whether moral law is itself absolute or relative.

For a moral analogy you might look at rules on killing another human being. An absolute example would be “You shall not kill anyone; there are no circumstances in which it is ever allowed.” A relative example would be “You shall not kill anyone except in the following circumstances…” There is of course a lot of debate over precisely which circumstances allow killing another human being, and different groups have come up with different answers. There is a debate about the legitimacy of the death penalty for instance in which different countries have come up with different answers.

rossum

This is exactly why we have cultural relativism and moral relativism. With an uninformed conscience what guiding force or principle is the highest order? Mine, yours, my parents.etc…? Our guiding principle would be the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which upon (name removed by moderator)ection holds up pretty well to maintaining order, civility and the overall common good, need I mention spiritual well being. (Now don’t start an argument over man’s past failings) Also, the Ten Commandments give us a pretty good reference. Gee, whoever thought them up must have been pretty smart.

The problem with relativism is that each individual can make a perfectly good justification for his actions in his own mind.

If everyone followed the Commandments to a tee all the time, how would society and the world look right now? Maybe I’ll start a thread with this question.

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

Also, the Ten Commandments give us a pretty good reference. Gee, whoever thought them up must have been pretty smart.

Pardon me, but one needs not to be smart to come up with the ten commandments. If we leave out the “whom and how to worship what diety”-part of the commandments, as they do not impose morals, any egoistic human capable of thinking can come up with:

• Fighting/dishonor parents is bad - (My parents cared for me, and I don’t want to be kicked out of my house by my own.)
• Stealing is bad - (I want to keep my property.)
• Murder is bad - (I want to live.)
• Lieing is bad - (Society doesn’t work without communication, and I want to be sure others tell me the truth.)
• Coveting is bad, it leads to stealing - (see above)
• No holidays are bad - (If I do not refrain from working once in a while, life’s not much fun.)

What’s so incredibly smart about those, that only a god could come up with them?

 

[buffalo]

You are right. These natural laws have been written into man’s hearts.

 

[hlgomez]

Atheist, you say:

Yes, there are such things. And they are defined by the society one lives in.

So, are you trying to say that when the society says that killing is okay in whatever way one wants, you can kill your own mother or father or brother or sister if you want to and its not bad/evil? Based on your conscience, is it right?

Pio

 

[buffalo]

Yes, that’s what relativism is. It is devoid of truth. Black can be white if I say so. But it can be black to you at the same time. So therefore black = white. We are both OK so long as we allow each other to believe. Now, if I try to correct you and point out that white=white then we will debate, and finally you being unconvinced will agree to disagree. You might even be angry with me for judging you. And so it goes on and on…

 

[AnAtheist]

hlgomez:

So, are you trying to say that when the society says that killing is okay in whatever way one wants, you can kill your own mother or father or brother or sister if you want to and its not bad/evil? Based on your conscience, is it right?
Pio

Well, that has happened, hasn’t it?

If the pope tells you to go to the Holy Land and slaughter some infidels on a crusade, is that right or wrong?
When God says, go and commit a genocide (among the Canaanites e.g.), is that right or wrong?

I know, those are rather drastic and disturbing examples, bet they make killing somewhat relative, don’t you think?

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Pardon me, but one needs not to be smart to come up with the ten commandments. If we leave out the “whom and how to worship what diety”-part of the commandments, as they do not impose morals, any egoistic human capable of thinking can come up with:

• Fighting/dishonor parents is bad - (My parents cared for me, and I don’t want to be kicked out of my house by my own.)
• Stealing is bad - (I want to keep my property.)
• Murder is bad - (I want to live.)
• Lieing is bad - (Society doesn’t work without communication, and I want to be sure others tell me the truth.)
• Coveting is bad, it leads to stealing - (see above)
• No holidays are bad - (If I do not refrain from working once in a while, life’s not much fun.)

What’s so incredibly smart about those, that only a god could come up with them?

anatheist - you think an atheist could have come up with these? By the way do you have a first atheist that you believe in, like Catholics have a first cause?

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

anatheist - you think an atheist could have come up with these?

Yes.

By the way do you have a first atheist that you believe in, like Catholics have a first cause?

No.