CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Cultural Relativism
The modern left argues that due to preferability being subjective (different people prefer different things) there is no metric on which we can objectively measure the preferability of different cultures, and that as such we shouldn't have preference for any particular culture. However, this is untrue, there are universal preferences among all humans, such as avoiding pain, getting wealthy, surviving, and generally improving living standards. These are completely tangible and measurable metrics and we can observe that certain cultural behaviors can further or hinge these universal preferences. As such it makes sense that we should adopt and preserve the cultural behaviors that are best at substantiating these universal preferences while abandoning and discouraging those that aren't.
The modern left argues that due to preferability being subjective (different people prefer different things) there is no metric on which we can objectively measure the preferability of different cultures, and that as such we shouldn't have preference for any particular culture.
Your explication of what the "modern left" believes is inaccurate. To a cultural relativist "preferability" is necessarily a non-factor precisely because of cultural relativism. People grow up "preferring" what they have been taught to prefer. All of their life experiences are viewed from the perspective of the culture they were born into. Of course, in reality, modern technology makes it a bit more complicated than that, because culture is often exported abroad. However, the general principle remains that even absorption of different cultures takes place within the framework of the dominant culture.
However, this is untrue
Of course it's untrue. It's your own straw man argument which you are attributing falsely to the left in order that you may debunk it. I have seen you do this in several threads, and the problem is your misunderstanding of the perspectives involved.
there are universal preferences among all humans, such as avoiding pain, getting wealthy, surviving, and generally improving living standards
None of these "preferences" are ubiquitous so I am afraid you have failed to tear down your own straw man. Avoiding pain is not a preference to a masochist, getting wealthy is not a preference to a socialist, surviving is not a preference to a suicidal depressive and generally improving living standards is not a preference to hermits who want to live in the wilderness.
I know you are going to find this offensive, but much of what you post is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Offensive or not, it's the reality of the situation.
A) I wrote general universal preferences, not unanimous universal preferences. Meaning I'm referring to what most people generally want, not what everyone wants.
B) I don't believe you're an elected representative of the modern left and in fact, Cultural Relativism as I described it, is promoted by the modern left as I'm a sociology student and what I wrote is exactly what I was taught.
D) My argument is against the acceptance of every cultural behavior, and in no way did you refute my argument. Do you believe we should accept every cultural behavior?
Did you notice that virtually all your counter arguments are premised on ignoring the actual content of the original argument and focusing on subtleties?
I wrote general universal preferences, not unanimous universal preferences.
The very meaning of the word, "universal", is that it is applicable to all cases. Trying to change the way English works in order to obfuscate your own ignorance is childish. You've evolved from inaccurate to outright stupid in the space of a single reply.
I don't believe you're an elected representative of the modern left
You are turning the facts upside down. It is I who is challenging your authority to speak on behalf of the left, not the other way around.
Also, C comes after B, not D. You really should learn the alphabet before you attempt debate.
For me, the system where the most people are not suffering is the best system.
People suffer under all systems, because every system so far attempted has resulted in either intentional or unintentional hierarchy. By the very definition of hierarchy, people at the bottom suffer for the sake of those at the top. Just because capitalists own 24 hour news channels which keep telling you nobody suffers under capitalism does not mean you are being told the truth. There are presently around 43 million Americans who are officially classified as living in poverty.
I completely comprehend the flaws of capitalism and how inescapable poverty becomes in the generations that follow the one where it was fair.
This is great news. We should celebrate your wisdom with a cold beverage.
Over the short term, capitalism works very well to strengthen an economy. But, as you rightly point out, its inherent unfairness makes it unsustainable over the long term. It's just a transitionary phase in human economic development. Nothing stays still forever.
It's never going to have 100% not suffering, it's about majority of possible people not suffering being close to the total that are not suffering to any significant extent.
Firstly, that's an assumption grounded in nothing. Secondly, it is not an argument for why we should give up working towards less suffering. It reminds me of the typical pro-gun argument: "people are going to get guns anyway, so we might as well sell them and make a profit". It is literally backward logic to suppose that, if a problem is difficult, the answer is therefore to increase the problem. In this case you are not suggesting we increase it, but you do appear to be suggesting we give up trying to solve it.
Alright buddy, you do your strawmanning of my argument combined with telling me I'm giving up.
Meanwhile, I'll pay attention to people who actually are relevant to me and my outlook and who took the time to hear what I say as I mean it not as they wish to twist it.
Cultural relativism is supposed to be used as a way of thinking about the motivations and actions of individuals in other cultures in anthropology. It holds that one should attempt to understand the actions of people from other cultures from that cultures perspective, instead of one's own perspective.
Contemporarily, it is often misinterpreted to mean that all cultures are equal in merit and that no culture is better than another. This is easy to debunk; culture "A" that practices female genital mutilation and slavery is of course inferior to culture "B" which does practice FGM or slavery while being the same in every other respect.
Contemporarily, it is often misinterpreted to mean that all cultures are equal in merit and that no culture is better than another. This is easy to debunk; culture "A" that practices female genital mutilation and slavery is of course inferior to culture "B" which does practice FGM or slavery while being the same in every other respect.
The words you are using (i.e. "merit" and "inferior") are not in any way related to cultural relativism, and are instead expressions of your own personal bias. There is no scientific scale to measure the inferiority or superiority of culture or there would be no such thing as cultural relativism in the first place.
In fact, I'll be honest: the bias evident in your writing is extraordinary. You claim a culture is "inferior" for practising what you describe as "female genital mutilation", but you do not describe the practice of male genital mutilation (i.e. circumcision) as "inferior" because it is endemic to your own culture!
"There is no scientific scale to measure the inferiority or superiority of culture or there would be no such thing as cultural relativism in the first place. "
I suggest you read up a little on cultural relativism, because you appear to have no idea what it is. If different cultures are not in any way inferior or superior to each other then why do you argue that the western world should adopt some form of socialism?
"You claim a culture is "inferior" for practising what you describe as "female genital mutilation", but you do not describe the practice of male genital mutilation (i.e. circumcision) as "inferior" because it is endemic to your own culture!"
Circumcision is an archaic practice that is deeply harmful to the sex of the male it is performed upon (albeit not quite as harmful as "FGM"). I was giving an example that would not be controversial, since everyone agrees on the harm of "FGM" but there is no such popular consensus on circumcision.
I suggest you read up a little on cultural relativism
I studied it at degree level. It was a large part of my journalism BA.
you appear to have no idea what it is.
I wish you idiots on the right would stop these deliberately vague smear attacks against the "understanding" of everybody who corrects your nonsense. The central tenet of cultural relativism is that there are no "superior" or "inferior" cultures, because we invent the definitions of these words ourselves, relative to the culture we observe them from.
"I studied it at degree level. It was a large part of my journalism BA."
I see, so you didn't pay attention in class then (1,2).
"I wish you idiots on the right"
I like how you always call me right-wing despite the fact that I hold views from both sides of the aisle.
"would stop these deliberately vague smear attacks against the "understanding" of everybody who corrects your nonsense."
OK, please source your claim, as I have.
"The central tenet of cultural relativism is that there are no "superior" or "inferior" cultures"
Untrue, as even cursory reading of the sources below will demonstrate.
"...because we invent the definitions of these words ourselves, relative to the culture we observe them from."
You're conflating moral relativism with cultural relativism. To quote the cited articles: "[W]hen the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid. Thus, people came to use the phrase "cultural relativism" erroneously to signify "moral relativism."
Oh also, did you not answer my previous post's question because you are unable to?
I see, so you didn't pay attention in class then (1,2).
Neither of your linked sources disprove a word I have said. You are attempting to use random link drops as red herrings because you are childish and stupid. The right wing does this a lot.
Honestly, you are just pathetic. A deceitful, idiotic neo-Nazi imbecile.
Social scientists strive to treat cultural differences as neither inferior nor superior.
"Neither of your linked sources disprove a word I have said. You are attempting to use random link drops as red herrings because you are childish and stupid."
"[W]hen the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid. Thus, people came to use the phrase "cultural relativism" erroneously to signify "moral relativism."
So this paragraph has no relevance to the topic at hand?
"Social scientists strive to treat cultural differences as neither inferior nor superior."
Indeed, because cultural relativism is an axiom of the anthropological study of cultures. It isn't, as aforementioned, an indictment that cultures cannot be inferior or superior. To continue on from your quoted sentence:
"That way, they can understand their research topics within the appropriate cultural context and examine their own biases and assumptions at the same time. This approach is known as “cultural relativism.” Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual person’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual’s own culture. A key component of cultural relativism is the concept that nobody, not even researchers, comes from a neutral position."
You're conflating moral relativism with cultural relativism
It is literally amazing that you would accuse me of this when I am arguing that "inferior" and "superior" are words with no meaning in relation to culture. Your very use of these words in the first place proves that it is you who is conflating these two things.
"It is literally amazing that you would accuse me of this when I am arguing that "inferior" and "superior" are words with no meaning in relation to culture."
So you acknowledge that capitalist cultures are equal to socialist cultures and thus there is no reason to want socialism?
You're arguing an extreme definition, there. Cultural relativism itself can be extreme, or not - as long as you are attempting a subjective through their eyes look at a society or societal practice, you are engaging in some degree of cultural relativism. The opposite would be cultural absolutism, where any society, etc, is judged only on an absolute scale.
It is entirely possible to take a middle stance, where one assumes that some things are definitely bad for society - say, for example, the common use of a drug that causes severe birth defects - while still evaluating other things relativistically, like sexual mores.
Now - it's still possible to argue for relativism for that drug issue, but not required, and a damn hard argument.
