Is Western culture superior to all other cultures?

[daniel]

What do people think? I read an article by Edwin Locke on the ARI website. When I told people they criticized it claiming it's too subjective, claiming the criteria of reason etc. is wrong. How should I counter this? What's the evidence that reason is better than mysticism that they have in the middle east for example. Also haven't we benefited from other civilizations? Isn't it wrong to group states together like this into collectives?

(Spellings corrected. Please use "Spell Check" button before posting. Also, added link to article.- softwareNerd)

Edited June 9, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

What's the evidence that reason is better than mysticism ...

There's no way to evaluate civilizations unless you can first answer this question that you raised.

Let me start by asking what you mean by "evidence"?

[the tortured one]

When I told people they criticized it claiming it's too subjective, claiming the criteria of reason etc. is wrong. How should I counter this?

We would be more than happy to help, but you need to be more specific than this

What's the evidence that reason is better than mysticism that they have in the middle east for example.

I don't even have to get abstract or philosophic on this one. During periods of mass mysticism there are dark ages when little to no scientific or industrial achievements are created. Look at the old American empires; the Aztecs and the Incans. It was a bloody, savage, primitive civilization, where the common man was nothing more than an insect to absolute dictators. So they built giant cities. I fail to see how impressive that is when it was build using slave labor. So the Mayans were good at astronomy. I fail to see how beneficial that was to the people they enslaved.

Look at the most famous dark age in history: the European dark ages that came about after St. Augustine imposed his platonic dualist philosophy on western civilization. For hundreds of years people wallowed in filth while the church told them that their suffering and poverty was a good thing because they were storing treasure in heaven. It wasn't until St. Thomas Aquinas gave a concession for reason that what we would know as progress started occuring. Sure the dark age civilization built grand cathedrals and church structures. That sure didn't stop the bubonic plague though.

It's like project X from Atlas Shrugged. The state can enact public works, but that does not mean progress occurs. Unless you feel that cultural progress exists (as many liberals feel is more important than scientific and industrial achievements.)

Also haven't we benefited from other civilizations?

It takes only a slight glance at the history of philosophy to see when humanity has benefitted from other cultures. After the fall of the western roman empire and St. Augustine championed platonism in the west, logic and Aristotlean reason fled east; to the Byzantine empire. It was during this spreading that the middle east experienced it's golden age. They invented Algebra as well as the concept of zero. At a time when a westerner took a single bath a year (which was ok, because despite his poor physical condition he was going to heaven) a middle eastern took on average 5 baths a day. The Byzantine empire was a very enlightened society even despite the influence of Eastern orthodox. This all ended when the barbaric Ottoman turks, ancestors of modern Islam, spread their own brand of platonistic tribalism throughout the middle east, eventually toppling the Byzantine empire. The mass exodus of ideas and logic and information from Constantinople to Italy is one of the primary factors that kick-started the European Renaissance.

Japan prior to the 19th century was still a feudalistic state, which had expelled western thinking after the sengoku ichidi (age of the country at war; in the 16th century... I think I spelled that right) when the west regained influence in the 19th century was it's period of great industrialization when the old caste-like feudal system collapsed. Of course, old habits die hard, hence Japan's collapse into fascism.

There are more examples. If I had more time I could analyze the entire world, but my time runs short. Needless to say, where-ever logic and reason have been held as absolute, thinkers and industrialists flourish. And no where is reason and logic more celebrated than in the west.

Isn't it wrong to group states together like this into collectives?

It has more to do with the dominant philosophy of the region more than national boundaries. Usually several nations will fall under a single region.

[daniel]

Many thanks for your comments. The accusation of being too subjective is shown below. These are the kind of things i've been told.

Judging cultures is rather subjective, and as a result, we can say which type of culture we prefer, but we cannot really say that one is broadly "better" than another, as it depends upon what aspects are most valued to the individual doing the assessment. Superiority seems to be anything you want it to be; "they killed more people so we are superior

Whats the criteria for superiority? Would a western 'civilisation' that is somewhat dependant on immigration from Non-western 'civilisations', be 'superior'?

America the biggest Western Power still has the death penalty and cloning, as does Germany. And we aren't the most advanced, South Korea is in front of us in terms of cloning. A competition to see which culture is superior is too subjective and does not foster a positive atmosphere.

Edited June 13, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[softwareNerd]

Daniel,

In your post, you attempt to provide reasons. Why? Why not say that you simply "feel" like you do, because of some mystical impulse? I take this to mean that you think reason is superior to mysticism.

What about these people who are trying to convince you about that reason is not a virtue? Doesn't the act of convincing assume that reason is "a good thing"?

Is there any sphere in your life where you have found mystcism to be a better way of getting what you want, when compared with reason?

[Hal]

It's a meaningless question until youve decided upon what criteria you are using to judge cultures. Superior in what way? Better at making cheese? Better at protecting individual rights? Better in terms of scientific progress? You cant make judgements without a standard.

[y_feldblum]

You ask for evidence. Evidence has no purpose if not to guide a person in reasoning. A person who rejects reason has no need for evidence. Mysticism is one form of the rejection of reason, and therefore has no need for evidence. Insofar as you ask for evidence, you have implicitly accepted the necessity of reason and you have implicitly rejected mysticism.

Reason is necessary in order to live well and happily. Long-term well-being is the implicit standard of value of the American people and of Western civilization. Over in the middle east, where the people worship death and pray five times a day for some of their virgins to be cute, insh'allah, in reward for killing themselves and others, the people have no need for reason, and no evidence in the world will convince anybody subscribing to their standard of value that reason has any use: they have mysticism.

We have benefited only from the other (semi-)rational civilizations. We cannot benefit, but can only lose, when we deal with death-worshippers.

I am confused as to your use of the noun term "collective". If you're actually trying to make sense with that question, pick language that conveys it. Moreover, insofar as you're asking whether it's wrong mentally to group similar things, you're asking whether it's wrong to conceptualize, ie, to use reason.

That would be twice in three sentences that you've questioned the validity and use of reason; why are you here, then? The purpose of this forum relates to Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, the only published philosophy the epistemology of which begins with the fact that reason is valid and the ethics of which begins with the fact that reason is necessary.

As regards the concrete objections you quote: judgment is or ought to be objective, and yes, judgment depends on one's choice of a standard of value. However, as pointed out above, there is only one choice of a standard of value which renders judgment of any use and of any necessity.

[the tortured one]

Judging cultures is rather subjective, and as a result, we can say which type of culture we prefer, but we cannot really say that one is broadly "better" than another, as it depends upon what aspects are most valued to the individual doing the assessment.

Superiority seems to be anything you want it to be; "they killed more people so we are superior

Whats the criteria for superiority? Would a western 'civilisation' that is somewhat dependant on immigration from Non-western 'civilisations', be 'superior'?

That is called cultural relativism. The philosopher James Rachels wrote an excellent dissertation on cultural relativism.

Cultural Relavitism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze Cultural Relavitism we find it not so plausible as it first appears.

First, an example of conflicting moralities. Darius, a king of ancient Persia, gathered people from two different cultures: the Greeks and the Callatians. The Greeks tended to burn their dead, and the Callatians tended to eat their dead. When Darius asked the Greeks if they would eat their dead, they were horrified. The Callatians were similarly horrified at the prospect of burning their dead.

The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of Cultural Relavitism there is a certain form of arguement. The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept this line of reasoning:

1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.

2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion.

Clearly this arguement is a variation of one fundamental idea. it is a special case of an arguement which says:

1) different cultures have different moral codes

2)Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions can vary from culture to culture.

To many people, it is very persuasive, but from a logical view, is it a sound arguement?

the trouble is that the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe; their believes might not be right. It could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and the other was simply mistaken.

The Nazis believed that they were doing the work of God when they were cleansing the Jews, Gays, and Gypsies. Turn their own arguement around on them and ask them if we should respect their right to murder jews, simply on premise that they believed they were doing the right thing.

Consider this as well: in some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. Other societies hold the earth is roughly spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no objective truth? Of course not. nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. The Earth is spherical, regardless on whether or not some people believed it to be flat. Some people were right, some people were wrong. It takes alot of maturity to admit to mistakes, a maturity most people do not possess.

The consequences of taking cultural relativism seriously.

1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. - Take my Nazi example. No one would be allowed to call the holocaust wrong. We would not even be able to say a Jew tolerant society is better than the anti-Semitic one.

2)We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. - Because the only way I can judge morality is through my own society, if I were a pre-civil war southerner, because my society says slavery is right, then I must accept it, because I can't judge morality by any other barometer other than my own society. Relativism is dangerous because in addition to being unable to criticize other societies, we would become unable to criticize our own. After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, how would we decide if a cultural decision is the right or wrong thing to do?

3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. - If everything is relative, how do we know making a decision is right or wrong? Freeing the slaves could not have occurred, because that society says slavery is ok. Most people would consider the emancipation of slaves to be moral progress, because someone outside that culture decided that slavery was wrong. 18th and 19th century was, in effect, different societies from the one we have now. To say we have made progress (in terms of racial equality and women's rights, etc, etc) implies that one culture (our modern one) is better than the other one, which is impermissible under cultural relativism.

America the biggest Western Power still has the death penalty and cloning, as does Germany. And we aren't the most advanced, South Korea is in front of us in terms of cloning. A competition to see which culture is superior is too subjective and does not foster a positive atmosphere.

Feeling that our culture is superior is different from feeling that our culture is always right, regardless. There is a difference between being objective and being a bigot. In the case of Objectivists, who would reject cultural relativism, we would hold South Korea to be superior in the area of scientific research that pertains to cloning. Our saying that western society is superior comes from a much larger perspective. Western culture invented logic, capitalism, free trade, among others. The concept of individual rights is a wholly western idea. The west sent a human to the moon, cured smallpox, invented flying machines, computers, and was the first culture to raise per capita GDP above 400 dollars per hour. Subsistence farming, when adjusted for inflation into modern times, comes out to about 400 American dollars annually. Prior to the industrial revolution, the significant part of the world still rested on or some where around 400 dollars annually. The only countries that even come close to that is Cuba with 900 dollars annually and North Korea, which refuses to publish numbers, though estimates are grim.

[the tortured one]

I'd hate to double post, but I am no longer able to rewrite my post, and this is something I would have added had my wireless connection not gone south.

The west is celebrated as superior because it's own achievements far outshadow that of any other culture. That doesn't mean we reject other cultures' contributions entirely, because we hold everything; including our own culture, to an objective standard.

Cultural Relativism is, more often than not, a form of self-loathing. The kind of stuff Christianity loves.

[skap35]

What's the evidence that reason is better than mysticism that they have in the middle east for example.

Which is superior (or morally correct): a government that hauls you off to jail to be tortured because you don't believe in Islam or a government that allows you to worship as you see fit?

The reason the West is superior to other cultures is because most Western nations have freed themselves from mysticism. Of course, the West was no better than, say the Middle East in this sense at one point. As was already mentioned, that was called the dark ages and people were brutally oppressed and scientific and cultural progress were virtually stagnant. The difference is that the West was able to advance beyond that while the Middle East has not.

Can you think of any scientific contributions made by the Middle East in the last four hundred years? How many Middle Eastern countries allow their citizens to have as much liberty as the average Western country?

A great book that covers precisely this topic is How the West Grew Rich by Nathan Rosenberg. It basically discusses how the concept of Capitalism evolved and why things like mysticism (specifically Christianity) were holding back economic and scientific progress.