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:
-
The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
-
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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.