7 ms·

It's illogical to make value judgements about cultures, there is no objective way to do it. What makes one culture "better" than another? Survival? Virality? Ho

It's illogical to make value judgements about cultures, there is no objective way to do it. What makes one culture "better" than another? Survival? Virality? Honor? Piousness? Lawfulness? Every culture values these things differently. Calling it politically correct shows your own failing to comprehend something outside of your own cultural frame of reference. Notably I could make the same point about morality as the author makes about honor, as it is just another social construct. Morality holds individuals back from getting what they want, instead they go around accumulating morality points even when no one powerful is watching. Clearly anyone who respects morality as a cultural value is PC wuss.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's not "illogical" to say that a culture which executes homosexuals is inferior (in that aspect) to ones that don't. You can argue about the standard, but it's straightforward and logical.
- leohutson 9y ago
  I disagree, it's inferior from your cultural perspective, but some cultures clearly didn't/don't value human life the same way you do. For instance from my perspective a culture that doesn't allow gay marriage is clearly inferior, which is straight forward and logical.
  - iamthirsty 9y ago
    To play devil's advocate on this subject: I spent a lot of time growing up in the South, and when I talk to a lot of friend's back home about the current climate here (e.g.: transgender bathrooms being added at work) they are disgusted and claim "our" culture is literally enabling mental illness. But the coastal culture I live in now and am originally from doesn't view it that way. I get a lot of these culture-clashes daily and it's a really hard thing to figure out. Mainly because life is truly how you view things, and your worldview builds your reality — but how can one say one worldview is better than another, objectively? Because the observers worldview makes them biased, it's really hard to say.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    It's not possible to be hard science objective in a discussion of values, but in that acknowledgment, there is a possible objectivity in finding viewpoints which allow for subjectivity. If you can't with hard objectivity say that it is correct to execute homosexuals or limit the rights of women, the most objective thing you can do is to protect people of different attributes and viewpoints. The culture which arbitrarily limits those people is operating...arbitrarily.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    But why should I care about their perspective? When we judge people, we judge them based on our own system of values (morality, ethics etc - call it whatever you like). They are basically axioms that we take for granted, and that provide a starting point for the logical reasoning process. I don't see why societies should be any different in that regard. So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ...". But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      >So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ..." But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time. The problem is: it isn't always there, even when it should be. Some people actually mean "Society X is better than Y in an absolute, not relative, sense."
      - int_19h 9y ago
        From their perspective, it may well be - not everyone subscribes to moral relativism; it's part of those axioms. But even then, "Based on my values ..." is implied. It just comes with an assertion that those values are universal (which, if you're a cultural relativist, you'll treat the same as well, recursively).
        leohutson 9y ago
        Based on which values though? I don’t think they should go unstated, because if I don’t hold the same values then arguments holds no water with me. A particularly annoying one is when people lie about their values or worse claim that their argument doesn’t stem from their values (are they embarrassed?), it’s purely “rational” and anyone who doesn’t agree is pc virtue-signalling cuck who is blind to reality.
    - leohutson 9y ago
      I agree for the most, but it might be better to phrase it as this culture differs from my culture because my value X is incompatible with my value y. Because otherwise you are only making a one sided statement, I can’t assume to know what your values are. Most political debates here for instance would be a lot shorter if people stated their cultural values upfront, rather than concealing them and arguing about something tangential.
sullyj3 9y ago
What you're gesturing at is that it's illogical to make value judgements, period, without a standard that your object of interest is being judged against. This fact, which is blatantly obvious once pointed out, is obscured by the shortcomings of our language. Usually the standard is implicit, but obvious from context, for instance if we were talking about racing, we could say that a Mclaren is better than a Volkwagen, and elide that we mean "better at moving quickly around a racetrack". It certainly makes sense to judge cultures, as long as you remember to have a standard in mind. For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s. The fact that different cultures value different things shouldn't be a problem for discourse, as long as your interlocutors have values in common. Lack of objective truth about values shouldn't prevent one from working towards the values that they personally hold. Relativism isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "there's no objective truth about values, so therefore every value system should be treated as equally valid". That would be an objective normative claim, and making it would be inconsistent with relativism. Relativism is just "there's no objective truth about values", and it stops there. Nothing about that prevents you from preferring your own values to those of others.
- leohutson 9y ago
  > For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s. But it might be hard to convince a 1850s white American to adopt that standard. It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter. Any culture that isn't similar your culture is by definition inferior when held to your cultural standards, so there is no reason to do so. All you need to decide is if the other culture is similar enough to tolerate it.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    > It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter Which definition would that be?
7952 9y ago
Surely value judgements are not bounded by logic. And the reliance on logic in this case is a value judgement in its own right.
jiiririri828282 9y ago
IMO that you think humans are entitled to get “what they want” shows you’ve been confused by certain voices in your culture If no frameworks are viable, why should “getting what you want” be a concern of mine? If there’s no morality, why not just shove you into traffic and be done with your desire to get what you want? I have no need for the selfish nonsense that are your needs! Capitalism is fake! Socialism is a ruse! None of these things we can see and read and consider exist! Go smelt your own metal for a toaster then. Not up to anyone else. I am not finding one reason why I should concern myself with “leohutson” On the one hand you accept the absence of physical evidence of higher powers; empiricism! but ignore a whole lot of biology We appear to have an innate morality against killing each other. That’s why we believe human morality is a thing to be considered Morality is what lets the species scale without destroying itself. We each have our own minds and generally speaking find value in acknowledging this The universe begets physics, chemistry, biology, humans, and their creations.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It's not "illogical" to say that a culture which executes homosexuals is inferior (in that aspect) to ones that don't. You can argue about the standard, but it's straightforward and logical.

leohutson 9y ago
I disagree, it's inferior from your cultural perspective, but some cultures clearly didn't/don't value human life the same way you do. For instance from my perspective a culture that doesn't allow gay marriage is clearly inferior, which is straight forward and logical.
- iamthirsty 9y ago
  To play devil's advocate on this subject: I spent a lot of time growing up in the South, and when I talk to a lot of friend's back home about the current climate here (e.g.: transgender bathrooms being added at work) they are disgusted and claim "our" culture is literally enabling mental illness. But the coastal culture I live in now and am originally from doesn't view it that way. I get a lot of these culture-clashes daily and it's a really hard thing to figure out. Mainly because life is truly how you view things, and your worldview builds your reality — but how can one say one worldview is better than another, objectively? Because the observers worldview makes them biased, it's really hard to say.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  It's not possible to be hard science objective in a discussion of values, but in that acknowledgment, there is a possible objectivity in finding viewpoints which allow for subjectivity. If you can't with hard objectivity say that it is correct to execute homosexuals or limit the rights of women, the most objective thing you can do is to protect people of different attributes and viewpoints. The culture which arbitrarily limits those people is operating...arbitrarily.
- int_19h 9y ago
  But why should I care about their perspective? When we judge people, we judge them based on our own system of values (morality, ethics etc - call it whatever you like). They are basically axioms that we take for granted, and that provide a starting point for the logical reasoning process. I don't see why societies should be any different in that regard. So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ...". But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    >So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ..." But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time. The problem is: it isn't always there, even when it should be. Some people actually mean "Society X is better than Y in an absolute, not relative, sense."
    - int_19h 9y ago
      From their perspective, it may well be - not everyone subscribes to moral relativism; it's part of those axioms. But even then, "Based on my values ..." is implied. It just comes with an assertion that those values are universal (which, if you're a cultural relativist, you'll treat the same as well, recursively).
      - leohutson 9y ago
        Based on which values though? I don’t think they should go unstated, because if I don’t hold the same values then arguments holds no water with me. A particularly annoying one is when people lie about their values or worse claim that their argument doesn’t stem from their values (are they embarrassed?), it’s purely “rational” and anyone who doesn’t agree is pc virtue-signalling cuck who is blind to reality.
  - leohutson 9y ago
    I agree for the most, but it might be better to phrase it as this culture differs from my culture because my value X is incompatible with my value y. Because otherwise you are only making a one sided statement, I can’t assume to know what your values are. Most political debates here for instance would be a lot shorter if people stated their cultural values upfront, rather than concealing them and arguing about something tangential.

sullyj3 9y ago

What you're gesturing at is that it's illogical to make value judgements, period, without a standard that your object of interest is being judged against. This fact, which is blatantly obvious once pointed out, is obscured by the shortcomings of our language. Usually the standard is implicit, but obvious from context, for instance if we were talking about racing, we could say that a Mclaren is better than a Volkwagen, and elide that we mean "better at moving quickly around a racetrack". It certainly makes sense to judge cultures, as long as you remember to have a standard in mind. For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s. The fact that different cultures value different things shouldn't be a problem for discourse, as long as your interlocutors have values in common. Lack of objective truth about values shouldn't prevent one from working towards the values that they personally hold. Relativism isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "there's no objective truth about values, so therefore every value system should be treated as equally valid". That would be an objective normative claim, and making it would be inconsistent with relativism. Relativism is just "there's no objective truth about values", and it stops there. Nothing about that prevents you from preferring your own values to those of others.

leohutson 9y ago
> For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s. But it might be hard to convince a 1850s white American to adopt that standard. It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter. Any culture that isn't similar your culture is by definition inferior when held to your cultural standards, so there is no reason to do so. All you need to decide is if the other culture is similar enough to tolerate it.
- interfixus 9y ago
  > It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter Which definition would that be?

7952 9y ago

Surely value judgements are not bounded by logic. And the reliance on logic in this case is a value judgement in its own right.

jiiririri828282 9y ago

IMO that you think humans are entitled to get “what they want” shows you’ve been confused by certain voices in your culture If no frameworks are viable, why should “getting what you want” be a concern of mine? If there’s no morality, why not just shove you into traffic and be done with your desire to get what you want? I have no need for the selfish nonsense that are your needs! Capitalism is fake! Socialism is a ruse! None of these things we can see and read and consider exist! Go smelt your own metal for a toaster then. Not up to anyone else. I am not finding one reason why I should concern myself with “leohutson” On the one hand you accept the absence of physical evidence of higher powers; empiricism! but ignore a whole lot of biology We appear to have an innate morality against killing each other. That’s why we believe human morality is a thing to be considered Morality is what lets the species scale without destroying itself. We each have our own minds and generally speaking find value in acknowledging this The universe begets physics, chemistry, biology, humans, and their creations.