Cultural relativism

Accepting cultural relativism is part of modern western culture, though.

>>2902318
Which is exactly why they're objectively bbarbaric.

Cultural relativism isn't really about that though.

It's the acknowledgement that what you think is valuable is subjective.

For example, I know Canada has a better quality of life by some objective measures, but I value the history and culture in my own country more than having a bigger apartment in a place I perceive as bland.

There may be a sense in which you can measure objectively what is better or worse, but the system of value you attach to things is relative.

>>2902318
i'm not saying western culture is perfect or THE best, just "better" compared to some

>>2902308
>I get why it's used in historical studies, but i can't morally justify it outside of that
It is just a prerequisite for sociological studies of other cultures. If you are going to be objective, you are to examine the culture and society in question impartially. You there are to examine the place of, say, a specific ritual in the socia life of a population, not to show the culture in question as advanced or barbaric. That's literally all actual cultural relativism is. The term is misused very often to refer to the modern trend of "tolerance", but it, in actuality, has no implications outside of the way studies in sociology are done.

>>2902326
okay i get that on an individual level, but wouldn't cultural relativism in large scale practice render the UN declaration of human rights pointless?

>>2902372
Yeah i agree with that, i should've written "academia" instead of historical studies.

>The term is misused very often to refer to the modern trend of "tolerance", but it, in actuality, has no implications outside of the way studies in sociology are done.

I think this might be where my grudges stem from

File: TiredOfYourShit.jpg (33KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 575x556px

>>2902308
>Some culture's are objectively better than others
How do you measure their superiority? (pro tip: you literally can't because you're trying to turn an opinion into a fact)


>Are we supposed to just sit back and expect them to figure it all out on their own.

Often is the case that this is all we can do. UK and USA have been in Afghanistan since 2001 or whatever, and what have we achieved in terms of improving LGBT and women's rights? Pretty much nothing. A culture that has been engrained in an isolated region like Afghanistan for literally over a thousand years cannot be "changed" in the way that you hope.

In some places, it can though, for example, the National Geographic did a piece on the Massai tribes of the Rift Valley slowly phasing out FGM.

The young men of the tribes were shown videos of the FGM ceremonies much to their horror and then educated about the horrible long-term effects. I imagine they were also told then sex with an uncircumcised woman is much better than with a circumcised women.

>>2902308
>I find it extremely difficult to accept that some hypothetical tribe in Africa, that's practicing human sacrifice, FGM/MGM, pedophilia and such, is not objectively inferior to lets say Norwegian culture.

It is objectively inferior and anyone who says otherwise is probably some kind of bourgeois liberal who is secretly nihilistic.

>>2902423
>How do you measure their superiority? (pro tip: you literally can't because you're trying to turn an opinion into a fact)

Wouldn't this line of thinking render all ethics and moral thinking bunk?
How are we to achieve "progress" if there's no good or bad course of action? I get that this is still my subjective opinion, but if i want to change the world for the better, i need to know what's considered "better". Cultural relativism just appears to be a way for people to excuse human rights violations.

>UK and USA have been in Afghanistan since 2001 or whatever, and what have we achieved in terms of improving LGBT and women's rights? Pretty much nothing. A culture that has been engrained in an isolated region like Afghanistan for literally over a thousand years cannot be "changed" in the way that you hope.

But was changing their culture and values a part of what they sought to accomplish there? I don't think using violence to force them to adopt our ways is the right method. I'm thinking more of applying international pressure through sanctions, if they refuse to outlaw what would be seen as a barbaric practice in our societies.

>tired of your shit
You know people would be a lot more open to your arguments, if you didn't act like a smug prick while making them.

>>2902424
>It is objectively inferior and anyone who says otherwise is probably some kind of bourgeois liberal who is secretly nihilistic.

Just calling the opposing side a bunch of names is not really a convincing way of making your point of view seem reasonable.
I just wanted to see arguments from both sides in order to challenge and perhaps reformulate my own point of view

>>2902408
Anon said what is perceived as VALUABLE, whereas moral relativism is what is perceived as RIGHT.

>>2902308
The only people who believe cultural relativism are complete and utter retards aka leftists.

>>2902308

Cultural relativism is good. If you do not have it then you get globalist trying to westernize the whole world into their definition.

Hence, the globalist will push more consumerism and degeneracy because this is what they think is good.

File: Fausto_Romitelli.jpg (196KB, 1181x1181px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1181x1181px

People accept cultural relativism as an easy way out.

Because once you start looking at the shitty parts of other cultures, and trying to measure things objectively, it's inevitable you'll start critically assessing the things in your culture.

Once this happens you'll start seeing virtues as vices and vices as virtues.

For example I live in Canada, and people are extremely industrious and hardworking. They think this is a virtue, but really they don't tend to accomplish much more than people in more Catholic, leisure based countries do. In fact, it tends to be the case that people will throw themselves into shitty dead end blue collar jobs, work like a horse without taking the time to step back and consider whether or not there might be a more efficient way to do this stuff, or whether there isn't something they'd rather be doing, and just end up uptight and bitter. GB Shaw once said something along the lines that Anglos think they're being moral when really they're just uncomfortable, and this resonates a lot with our culture.

At the same time, I've had a great many latino friends brag to me about the friendliness of their culture, the "sensuality" of their women, their romance, etc. When in reality, or at least, according to me, their friendliness tends to be a kind of unaware loudness, their "sensuality" is in fact a complete lack of subtlety in the sexual marketplace, and their "romance" an obnoxiously jealous pre-occupation with sexuality. These things they take as great virtues are in fact arrogant stupidities, stemming from their inability to step outside of themselves and see the world from a different perspective.

But once you start doing this, you become that overly critical guy who's no fun at parties and is too stupid to even understand the basic axioms of society.

It's a lot easier to say "we're all the same, but different" and trouble yourself with thinking critically.