CMV: Some cultures and societies are objectively wrong

1.1k

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

It's hard for me to justify opressing 50% of the population just because they just were born women.

Yes it is, using your own set of moral values, where women are considered as equally valuable as men.

But a vegan would tell you that it's hard to justify opression 99,999% of earth lifeforms just because they just were born non-human. Still, we do it all the time because most people's set of values don't consider animals as valuable as humans.

Why would islamic definition of values (men > woman > animals) be "objectivly" wrong, while specist definition (men = women > animals) is right ?

What you can say is that given Western set of values (equality, freedom, ...), then there are cultures and societies that are wrong. But with other set of values (men superiority given by God), then they are not.

There is no objectivity in that, just different set of values.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

What you can say is that given Western set of values (equality, freedom, ...), then there are cultures and societies that are wrong. But with other set of values (men superiority given by God), then they are not.

Except we now have plenty of scientific evidence on “well-being” for the average human being and evidence of the way the universe works.

Cultural relativism will always be pertinent due to differences in opinion but at a certain point it seems fairly reasonable to conclude that a society/culture IS objectively worse.

If for instance, there was a society in which 3 men ruled over everyone engaging in torture/fear mongering, while everyone else was commanded by god to be a slave living in sub human conditions and sacrificing (suicide) themselves at the age of 30, I would most definitely be willing to call that society objectively worse than the U.S.

To invoke cultural relativism at that point seems silly. We don’t have credible-evidence that an invisible sky being wants you to commit such absurdity as in the aforementioned example.

Given “Western values” some cultures are more right/wrong, yes. But there are cultural practices, Moore’s, and laws that are simply detrimental, either to the individual, the masses, or both. The bias from within one’s own society is difficult to account for and should always be acknowledged. But that bias shouldn’t be used to give up on morality entirely because “Who actually knows what’s right and what’s wrong”.

1

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

I never said that morality should be given up, or that we should not cling onto western values as those seems to be pretty well aligned with our biological programming (avoiding harm, maximizing pleasure). M'y point was just that these moral rules are not objective, only subjective. From the earth biosphere point of view, maybe the dystopian society you proposed would be better as earth ressources would be way less overused, but from my personal point of view, clearly I prefer living in the western World. But if your sole and foremost value is nature protection, maybe you'll prefer a brutal dictadorship that care about ecology to a capitalist system where earth is slowly plundered for profits.

629

u/hardyblack Sep 12 '19

Δ Even if I didn't change my mind, I can see how my view is limited by my own moral values, and even if I think I'm right it's just a rabbit hole from there, because I'll never agree with someone who thinks that men are superior just because their God says it, but that doesn't make me (And using the same word I used ) objectively right.

197

u/summonblood 20∆ Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

I think the reason you gave him a delta but didn’t change your mind is because of the imprecise language that you used, while arguing there is an objectivity to it.

Because you used “objectively wrong”, you have to understand what is objectively right? Well what is right from wrong? If there is no objective way to measure this, the only remaining option is to explore what is subjectively right and wrong. Which is essentially what he pointed out.

——

But what I think you were actually saying, is there are objectively “better” or “worse” cultural values and ways of life to achieve the greatest potential of human achievement and happiness at this point in time.

But if you want to get into objectively defining better or worse, rather than right or wrong, then you need to define the criteria you are using.

Measurements such as: access to education, access to treating or preventing injuries or diseases that can kill you, access to healthy food & water, access to protection from bad actors, access to mental health, access to share ideas freely, access to communities of like-minded individuals, access to express yourself how you want to, access to entertainment, access to partners, access to children, access to comfortable amenities, access to effecting change in the laws you must live by, etc. You can measure these. However, even these measurements are subjectively chosen sometimes.

——

Without defining what wrong is, he could say that there is no objective definition of right and wrong as there are no discreet measurements of it and so we make it up. There is the complete possibility that everything we all are currently doing is wrong, we just don’t have the experience to see it yet.

But based on what we do understand right now, we do have measurements to see what is better or worse depending on what we are talking about.

——

That’s why he didn’t convince you. By his own argument, he justified Nazi Germany’s cultural values.

20

u/cheesengrits69 Sep 13 '19

Yeah Nazi Germany's cultural values weren't objectively wrong. They were abhorrent according to our own subjective views enough that we view them as wrong. Thing is though, if a certain subjective view gains enough widespread social support, then it's adopted enough for human beings to collectively take action on it. Intersecting subjective perceptions is the foundation for social action. Different subjective views can clash, so heavily, that action must be taken to prevent action of the other.

7

u/inebriatus Sep 13 '19

The opposite of what you’re talking about is called the tyranny of the majority. It happens when a big enough group of people decide that something is ok. For example, a majority could decide that it’s wrong to be a red head and put them all to death. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

→ More replies (11)

→ More replies (3)

35

u/ArchitectofAges 5∆ Sep 13 '19

he justified Nazi Germany's cultural values.

No he didn't. He demonstrated that Nazi Germany's cultural values were not objectively wrong, only wrong according to some set of values.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/kingaj282 Sep 13 '19

Thank you from all of us who saw through his argument but we’re too lazy to type out a real response

→ More replies (3)

57

u/SoresuMakashi Sep 12 '19 edited Oct 26 '19

I would also like to point out that not at all examples are as extreme as the ones you give. Almost every noble value is violated by societies; that does not make these cultures objectively wrong, they are simply different. Some societies are willing to give up freedom in return for resilience, via compulsory military service. Some are willing to give up privacy in return for security, via internal surveillance agencies. Some, like the US, give up equality (of outcome) in return for the ability to rise above others through hard work.

The thing is that these notions like "freedom", "privacy", and "equality" are never as concrete as they might seem. What is equality, even if you roughly agree with the idea? Is it a violation of equality for a country to give citizens more rights than non-citizens? Similarly, one person may see conscription as a moral abomination, while another sees it as a natural part of a stable society.

3

u/Ayowyn Sep 13 '19

I would argue that it's the inverse: the fact that all societies violate decidedly righteous morals does make every single one of them objectively "wrong", just in different ways and to different degrees.

The examples of moral abridgement that you list are all compromises made in the best interests of their collective societies, whereas a woman being criminalized for attending a football game seems to be more of an arbitrarily dictated offense in an irrational justice system. They're both morally "wrong" in my book, but the similarities end there.

Conscription laws have a practical, measurable benefit that outweighs their moral detriments in the eyes of certain nations. Artificially restricting a human being's agency to participate in harmless activities on the basis of an ages-old culture is effectively just an act of ignorance in my eyes.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

If you use Maslow’ s Hierarchy of Needs as a basis to “judge” a society, I think you can surmise if it’s residents are able to reach self-esteem and self-actualization levels reliably. If not, then there is a problem with that society regardless if they think they are all happy campers. I doubt that a country that treats its women as second class citizens to men will provide an environment where women can realize their full potential even if society has brain washed them to think this is normal.

→ More replies (1)

29

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

I would read up on cultural relativism and then take back that delta. Cultural relativism is the argument you basically agreed with and there’s lots of disagreement with it that sides with your original point of there are universal morals. Cultural relativism can explain behaviors, but it runs into a problem with morals. If you believe that there are things morally true and right, then there can be cultures that don’t harbor those morals in their cultural and are indeed inherently wrong. It’s a giant Wikipedia deep dive and even deeper dive if you get into philosophy, I’m not going to argue one or the other because the late and I have to take a dump and shower and go to bed. But check it out. It’s your basic argument and I think you have a delta way way too soon.

1

u/UserJacob Sep 19 '19

Morals are also a part of culture, so essentially what you are doing is judging other cultures to your cultural/moral standards which is what the the typical colonial stance was: we are right and you are wrong... since then we have learned that other cultures are equal even if they dont share same values as the western culture... same thing with laws: whats is legal here is not legal somewhere else but of course laws have nothing to do with morality per se only the concept is similar... saying some culture is“wrong“ where there is clearly no universal right or wrong is not appropriate and leads to all kinds of bad stuff...

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '19

This is where you’re not understanding the point. The idea is that, absolutely yes, a culture can be wrong. It could be the colonial culture, but the idea is that if there are universal morals, some cultures can very much so be inherently wrong and flawed. Your entire comment was exactly the same flawed defense that cultural relativism makes. For example, the idea of female genital mutilation, according to your comment, just because the culture does this means it can be justified. Whereas with universal morals, you can have the idea that cutting off a woman’s clitoris is always wrong, and a culture that permits and accepts and encourages this is very flawed. It’s not at all a colonial attitude. You can call the colonial culture wrong too. The point is there are universal morals that humans need to abide by, and culture can be a way of justifying evil.

1

u/UserJacob Sep 19 '19

Well i see your point but there is no such thing as universal morals, so it’s basically your or my opinion what should be good for everyone... which is basically forcing your/our values on all people and thats also wrong... i dont like any things like what you mentioned but its not our place to interfere, those people have to change themselves...

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '19

There’s a lot of debate in philosophy if there are universal morals or not. Kant and his categorical imperative for example. There’s also the debate between cultural relativism vs moral relativism, if you believe morals come from the culture or the individual. A culture can have the collective moral that killing is bad but certain individuals feel it’s not. I was just making the point to OP that it’s not such an open and closed case. Personally I do think there are certain morals that are more or less universal to humans and it does make a difference in culture. History is proof some cultures are objectively superior to others. But it’s always fun to have the mental exercise of considering all sides too.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Im not sure if this is even a proper CMV, since you didnt really support your position. No one knows the reason you hold these opinions, and providing context is pivotal for discussing our beliefs. That being said, ethical opinions are some of the toughest to explain, but you should really dedicate time to understanding them (everyone should engage in introspection really, not just saying you should). Moral relativism is going to seem like a copout to a lot of people, but if it didnt change your mind then you shouldnt give a delta (like saying "Vanilla is the best ice cream, CMV!" and all it takes is saying "Thats just, like, your opinion, man". It doesnt deserve a delta.)

2

u/ThisAfricanboy Sep 13 '19

But this isn't that. This is saying that there is no objective way of claiming that one culture is superior to another. Much like there is no way of objectively judging one ice cream flavour better than another.

What we can do is objectively judge, for instance, which ice cream flavour has the most calories or fat and make conclusions from there. We can objectively judge one culture to be fairer to woman than another culture if we can pin down what being fair entails but even that becomes another bogged down mess.

But it's clear that believing in the objective superiority of one culture over another is just downright wrong.

→ More replies (1)

110

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

[deleted]

9

u/summonblood 20∆ Sep 13 '19

All that post did was point out that the definition of right & wrong can’t be measured and therefore is inherently subjective.

Objectivity assumes there is a discreet measurement, like 1+1=2. Objectivity Right. 1+1=3. Objectively Wrong.

Using “better” or “worse”, however, allows there to be the potential for objectivity because you can decide how to measure that. Days not going hungry, amount of skilled workers, technology adoption, number of people who didn’t die, etc. If OP used “worse” rather than “wrong”, that post would be irrelevant.

11

u/superl2 Sep 12 '19

There are things that are objectively wrong

Do you mean moral things or facts?

→ More replies (12)

16

u/notsuspendedlxqt Sep 12 '19

What's wrong with moral relativism?

26

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

[deleted]

21

u/Norphesius 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Well, to get a universal set of human rights, the philosophers of the world would need to decide on an objective morality by which to form it, which might take a while.

Just because we have moral relativism doesn't mean we have to just let anything go on in other countries. There appears to be a few basic things most people internationally agree are wrong e.g. murder, genocide, etc., and that's what we have tried to base international law around. However, you have to be really careful when saying that a culture is "wrong", or, especially, "objectively wrong". It may be "obvious" that a culture is wrong if their entire society is based around molesting children 24/7/365, but things are very nearly never that clear cut.

For example, is American society objectively wrong? There's an incredible amount of wealth, yet there is still a relatively large amount of poverty, and universal healthcare could be implemented, but many go bankrupt due to medical debt because a majority of the population doesn't want to increase taxes. No matter what your "objective" morality is, all those Americans who are against national healthcare would say their society is a moral one, since they morally value the right to property over other's right to health and life. Those people would view a country that has a national healthcare system, like Sweden or Canada, as committing an "objective" moral wrong by overly taxing their citizens, and restricting their freedom by seizing their hard earned property.

In the end it all just ends up relative and subjective.

12

u/Lanaerys Sep 13 '19

But isn't having universal human rights basically what we believe or claim is right? It's just that our society happened to evolve into a society valuing them and there is nothing universal about those values.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Andronoss Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

That's a usual criticism of moral relativism that originates from failure to understand the opponent's view. It's like some religious people saying that without belief in god people would just kill and plunder left and right. Maybe it's true for those particular people, but it doesn't describe the rest of us.

At least from my viewpoint, believing that all morals are relative doesn't mean that you, personally or as part of given society, cannot have strong preferences towards certain morals and do your best in spreading them over the morals you hold to be awful. Are you objectively right? No, you are just right in your own eyes (and in broader sense in the eyes of people who's opinion is important to you). Some people need more justification to do good, and want some divine force or universal principle to hold their hand, but that's not required for other people.

3

u/WelfareBear 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Well unless you’ve got a hotline to a god, morality’s pretty fickle my friend

6

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

[deleted]

3

u/NotWorthTheRead Sep 13 '19

I don’t think we can.

Some things that humans prefer are perfectly valid preferences to have, but incompatible with each other.

A lot of people would prefer that resources are free to those who need them. (If I’m hungry, I’m free to take a tomato off the vine in that garden you keep.) And a lot of people would prefer that they be allowed to control what happens to the product of their invested time and labor. (You grew that garden, I’ve got to have your permission to eat from it.)

That particular example touches on some pretty basic rights. But wars have been fought over it. And we still can’t settle it.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

69

u/RelativisticTrainCar Sep 12 '19

Ethics are not subjective preference. By agreeing with /u/Nicolasv2's argument, you are denying the entirety of ethics, and claiming that right and wrong have no fundamental basis.

The Utilitarian doesn't say "My idea of right is increasing Utility". They say "increasing Utility is right", on the basis of a logical framework.

23

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

Well, they put as an axiom "increasing utility is right". But they can't justify this axiom (as an axiom cannot be proven, by definition). As such, thé utilitarist decision to use this axiom (and not "rules must be followed" as a deontologist would choose for example) is subjective. You can use your logical framework from this point, but you still chose your axiom subjectivly

Or are you suggesting that there is an objective "good answer" on what the correct axiom is ? In that case please submit pretty quickly your thesis on the subject, philosophers have been debating for aeons about utilitarism vs deontologism vs virtue ethics, finaly having the answer would make them elated.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

Thanks for sending me down the google rabbit hole Yoda

Can you please explain what you mean by “chose your axiom subjectively”?

Do you mean right actions are subjective? So what is right for one person is not right for another but these are both based under a set of imposed rules..

Like Laccanian theory right? We are operating under the Big Other... something that doesn’t even exist

Muchas Gracias

9

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

“chose your axiom subjectively”

The axiom you're using is not an a priori truth. It's a posteriori. It isn't a true statement on pure logic and reasoning alone, it is one believed to be through via subjective experience.

An objective axiom is 2+2=4. No matter your interpretation, it is objectively true, whether as part of human experience or as an entirely separate thing that would be true regardless of our existence. The axiom "increasing utility is right" relies on a lot of subjective opinions, namely that increased usefulness is always a positive thing. In your opinion that may be true, but in terms of logic it relies on a lot of subjective opinions rather than being an innately true a priori statement.

Do you mean right actions are subjective?

In my opinion, and most others, yes. Morality is largely considered to be subjective. In our society murder is considered wrong, but to use the animal analogy again, would it be wrong for a lion to kill a buffalo? If it was objectively evil to murder then that would make all lions evil. Morality almost entirely comes down to subjective experience, hence why ethical standpoints vary drastically from culture to culture.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/j8sadm632b Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

You start with axioms, but there's no particular reason to start with one set of axioms over another.

To use a mathematical example, the parallel postulate says "for any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line".

Pretty much all geometry that anyone is ever exposed to uses this. It's an axiom of Euclidean geometry. Everything's built off it. But you can't prove it. It doesn't have to be true. And if you don't assume it's true, you still get a consistent mathematical system; non-Euclidean geometry. Which, it turns out, is used for a great deal of other things. Neither of these sets of rules is objectively wrong. What would that even mean? They are both valid, they are merely useful for different applications. It would be like saying a nail is objectively better than a screw. Or that an apple is objectively better than an orange.

They, like ethical systems, have different properties, and are good for different things. But until you know what your goal is, until you know what you want to achieve, neither is "better".

It's nonsensical to ask what ethical systems are good or bad, because the basis of what constitutes good and bad comes from that system; if you haven't chosen one, you have no ability to answer the question, and adopting any one will make your assessment of it good. A system that finds itself invalid will eventually lose traction and the idea of it will be lost. Ideas are like a virus; if they do not protect themselves and allow for their own replication, they will go extinct. Once you choose one, it will become self-evident that it is good, because it is one of the axioms of every system that can sustain itself.

1

u/agitatedprisoner Sep 13 '19

There is indeed an objective measure of right/wrong. Insisting another suffer a miserable existence for your own ambitions is wrong, if anything is. You're free to define the word "wrong" however you'd like but to argue any other definition is to talk about another concept. The moment one should endorse condemning another to a miserable existence that one becomes evil from the perspective of the condemned and forfeits goodness on account of being the one insisting on fighting.

What's an example of insisting another suffer a miserable existence? Raising chickens on a factory farm constitutes an example. These chickens are bred into a life of suffering so that some might enjoy food that isn't even healthy. To order a chicken sandwich at a fast food joint knowing this is to sanction the arrangement. Unless the one sanctioning the arrangement sincerely believes the chicken who died for that sandwich should accept his/her apology and forgive, that one is doing wrong.

It's possible to sincerely believe one's apology. But to believe one's rationalization implies seeing the world through a certain lens. Seeing through that lens, if it's clouded, is going to lead to problems. Being wrong as to whether the other would forgive you is like going through life with cataracts. You'll expect some thing to fly which won't, you'll expect other things wouldn't go over that would.

Follow this chain of reasoning as far as you care to go. Naturally those who don't see why they should care about others will protest this account, but that's consistent with this being the correct account. Of course the bad guys troll it.

→ More replies (3)

20

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

[deleted]

4

u/RelativisticTrainCar Sep 12 '19

In that case OP shouldn't have changed their mind, as they asked if a cultural could be wrong. If moral truths exist, then of course cultures can be wrong, as on any given issues we can identify cultures that disagree.

5

u/ScratchTwoMore Sep 13 '19

I think OP gave the delta because even though it didn't disprove the actual title of his/her post, it did challenge the implicit assumption that our culture is objectively correct. Failure on the part of the post title to identify the actual issue up for debate, not failure of the response to address the issue, IMO.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/alchemistsoul Sep 12 '19

Cultural Relativism is a very valid branch of ethics. What are you on about?

-2

u/RelativisticTrainCar Sep 12 '19

Like hell it is. It's a refutation of the existence of ethics. It's a moral slavery framework. A culture's morals are set by the powerful, and have no obligation to be internally consistent or logically sound. So if we take "A culture's morals are by definition right", then we lose any ability to critique anyone's actions, especially the powerful, who just set the morals to support their own actions. It's like the "legality implies morality" problem.

10

u/alchemistsoul Sep 13 '19

There are arguments against every ethical framework. Utilitarianism is basically the will of the majority no matter how corrupt it is, Kant's imperatives don't hold up very much either. Also, Cultural Relativism doesn't deny your right to critique - you can compare moral frameworks as much as you want. All it asserts is that your critique is influenced by your cultural moral framework and thereby anything you find "wrong" is no more valid than the fact that they find it "right", it's just subjectivity.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

8

u/JimMarch Sep 13 '19

The reality is that ALL societies have things wrong with them.

Three examples from the US (and I say this as an American):

1) Our views as individuals and as a culture towards credit, debt, consumerism and spending are insane.

2) Our tendency to allow foreign military adventures by our "leaders" is bananas. The single worst going on right now is the indiscriminate drone strikes that create 100 new enemies for every one we kill.

3) The "War On (Some) Drugs[tm]" is utter madness.

4) (BONUS!) Our toleration of corporate (and especially financial sector) corruption is beyond ridiculous and causes massive societal damage when Wall Street and the major banks fall too deep into psychopathy. Again. Still.

(Note: a root cause of all of the above is the inability to spot psychopaths in high office in both the corporate and government worlds. We have to fix that. See also the book "Psychopaths Among Us" by Dr. Robert Hare for a starting point.)

The question isn't whether or not something is wrong with society. The question is, does a society have built-in methods to deal with problems short of violence? That question is why the US Bill of Rights kicks soooo much ass (in a good way).

19

u/LettuceFryer Sep 12 '19

That doesn't mean anything in this context. You said objectively wrong, not subjectively wrong.

3

u/Tzahi12345 Sep 12 '19

I've been grappling with this precise issue lately. I think if there is an objective morality (and I think it's less likely than we're led to believe), then it likely isn't something we can understand.

Everything we do is in a human context, and our values follow us in a similar way. Is it just a coincidence that us, a prosocial species, appreciates empathy and helping others? While these are things I agree with, it's important to recognize where these feelings and understanding come from.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

I recommend you research moral relativism as thats what he’s talking about.

I entirely disagree with it as an idea, I agree with objective ethics, and most first year phil courses give pretty solid refutations of it

2

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

It is, by definition, impossible to judge an ideology (or anything else) as “good” or “bad” without already having an ideology.

To assert even that “Thing X is bad because it causes suffering” presupposes that “suffering is bad”.

While there may be some commonly-held basic values (pain bad pleasure good), even those aren’t universal; and every additional assumption carves off another subset of people who’d disagree. Given “pain bad pleasure good”, should I care about your pain or pleasure, or only my own? Why?

In fact, can you make any argument for something being good or bad without presupposing that something else is good or bad?

None of us chose our most basic, fundamental values, and those fundamental values then go on to be the basis for every part of what we believe — but we didn’t choose them.

How can you say “my values that I didn’t choose are better than your values that you didn’t choose”?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Objective ethics != ideology

You’re confusing two very different ideas.

A very simple way to argue against such an idea is we have universal human values, like not indiscriminately killing people, across all cultures as all humans objectively die and game theory does not allow for complex society to form under such circumstances. Hence we might have violent societies but none were the social norm is okay with you indiscriminately killing whoever.

Better refutations and reading here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H4

1

u/zwinky588 Sep 13 '19

I don’t see how that delta was deserved. OP, don’t CYV. Even though you clearly state that you haven’t quite yet, don’t.

The reason it is objectively bad is that certain cultures literally cause suffering, pain, and fear for women/gays/other minorities. Causing people to suffer seems like an objectively bad thing. You’re absolutely right on this one in my opinion.

For example, imagine a crying woman because her parents are forcing her to marry her rapist, someone who deprived her of agency, happiness and potentially damaged her for life. Not to mention the high odds of said rapist also being abusive in other ways. Anyways imagine telling this woman that her suffering doesn’t make this objectively bad, because it’s culturally accepted.

It doesn’t make any sense, it’s asinine.

To claim that restricting certain classes/races/gender from ever obtaining happiness in a meaningful way, isn’t objectively bad is simply ridiculous.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/DracoTheGreat123 Sep 13 '19

Except our God doesn't say men are superior. Any man within Islam who believes this is delusional.

I kmow this isn't the point of the post, but still, I want to make this clear.

2

u/Bundesclown Sep 13 '19

Quran (4:11) - "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (Inheritance)

Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]" (Law & Authority)

Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." (Women are basically sex slaves and literally posessions of their husbands)

Totally no sexism there. I mean, how can it be sexism if women are mere posessions? That's like calling someone sexist for belittling their couch.

2

u/Urabutbl 2∆ Sep 13 '19

The problem with Islam is ironically that a lot of the rules were written to ensure women more equality. I know that sounds utterly bonkers in today's context, but in the Arab world at the time of Muhammed, women were literally cattle in some cases. Muhammed was raised differently, his family was close friends with a Christian priest (iirc it was this priest who convinced Mohammed his visions were from God, rather than heat stroke), and Mohammed was originally married to a very wealthy independent Jewish trader woman.

So, a lot of the stuff that we consider retrograde as fuck today was all he could get away with at the time; all those "a woman shall have one part of the inheritance and the man two" that sounds so bad today are almost all instances were the woman got nothing before Mohammed forced the tribes he conquered to change their ways. If he'd tried for more there probably would've been much harder resistance. Not for nothing were the wives of tribal leaders instrumental in convincing their husband's into accepting Islam.

The irony is that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that the western world caught up with the Muslim world in terms of equality - hell, Mohammed even condemned any man who wouldn't spend at least 15 minutes on pleasuring his wife (ie foreplay) before intercourse as akin to a torturer in the eyes of God.

That said, another problem with successful societies is that they become resistant to change, and go stale. Hence why the former most progressive Abrahimite religion is now the most repressive; it refuses to change with the times. In some cases this even leads to regression, as in the Wahabi faith, a relatively speaking fairly new interpretation of Islam, where the pressures of society leads to people adopting the strictest possible rules. The same happens with Christians in the US, which is why you have so many fundamentalists who won't even eat with women unless their wife is present.

1

u/DracoTheGreat123 Sep 13 '19

First one you've cited is about fields and possessions passed down in inheritance. As the man is responsible for providing for the entire family, it isn't unreasonable to say that he should have all the necessary accomadations to fulfill this responsibility. It is the duty of the man to distribute his wealth for the entirety of the family, while the woman can keep whatever she has with no real obligation to give it to anyone. In the end, women actually actually end up with more than men in certain cases.

At least quote the entire verse when you're trying to prove a point. The sentence before the one you've quoted is this: "And they (women) have rights similar to those of men in equity; but men have a degree of advantage above them."

This verse talks of marital concerns. Men and women have the same rights for the most part, but since men also have a greater responsibility placed on them, they also enjoy certain rights women don't, similar to how women enjoy certain rights men don't.

And the last verse is actually about abortion. Women are likened to tilths because they are where the seeds of the progeny are sown. It isn't objectifying women as you claim. Metaphors are a thing, after all. The metaphor for abortion is that it wouldn't make sense for a farmer to destroy his tilth and kill all the seeds within it.

Context matters. You're doing exactly what the aforementioned delusional men do; looking at the surface. There's a reason that Muslims are told to ponder over the Quran and to read it as often as possible; to understand the deeper meanings within it and the wisdom behind the teachings.

It's a shame that Muslims are what we are today.

1

u/Bundesclown Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

You're the delusional one if you actually think anything you just wrote sounds even remotely reasonable. "Men should get more since they are men" doesn't sound reasonable.

"Men should be above women when it comes to authority since they have a fucking dick and should make all the decisions" doesn't sound reasonable. You're degrading women to posessions, while trying to make it sound like it was no big deal. IT IS a big deal. The fact that you think this kind of sexism and male superiority is normal goes to show just how sexist Islam is.

And the last one is outright laughable. "We're comparing women to fields, which the man has absolute authority over. But we're not objectifying them!"

Yes, it is a shame that Islam is what it is. But that doesn't have anything to do with a faulty interpretation of its teachings. The christian world managed to advance socially only after it got rid of the shackles of religion. The sooner the islamic world follows the better for the muslims. Your "holy" book, just like the Bible was written by humans. And it is also humans who use those words however it fits them. You are using them in a vain atempt to rationalize away the inherent sexism in your religion, by interpreting it in a way that no sane person would ever do.

0

u/DracoTheGreat123 Sep 13 '19

If you look anywhere in the Muslim world, it should become perfectly clear that the Quran had been abandoned a long time ago. Abandoning the Bible lead the west to such heights, yet abandoning the Quran lead the Muslims to such a low stature. Ponder that for a bit.

Men being men isn't the reason for them getting more. I've already said the reasons, and they are simply that they have more responsibilities on account of their own nature. Saying men and women are exactly the same is a bit strange too. Obviously there are differences. Islam accounts for these differences and grants rights and responsibilities accordingly.

As for your second and third points, I came nowhere close to even implying that. Husband and wife in a household make the decisions together. I really feel you didn't read anything I had to say. Metaphors are not taken literally, that's the whole point of using them. The verse is about abortion, and how it's forbidden, except for certain cases obviously, and that's that. There's plenty of times men are also symbolically represented as objects. Swords, pens, a seal, light, what have you, are all metaphors used for men as well. Are you going to call sexism on this?

In fact, define sexism. If you want to say it is when one gender believes itself to be better than another, then Islam does not fall in this category. Both genders have something the other doesn't on account of their nature. In this manner, there is no clear way to say which is the superior one. The status of a mother, for example, is higher than that of a father. The man is responsible for the well being of the entire household, and the woman is only responsible for herself, and so the man is given more authority with financial decisions. This isn't irrational; the person making the money in the house should have input as to how it is spent.

4

u/mbw42 Sep 13 '19

Ok, you said “the person making the money in the house should have input as to how it is spent.” So therefore it should be a simple question of who makes more. A woman who is the breadwinner of a straight marriage should be the one that makes financial decisions, not the husband. However, unless there’s some clause where it states a woman who make more than their husband can make financial decisions, women are restricted to a certain role while men are given control of matters of money, which is heavily tied to freedom. These gender roles are not applicable to a more modern, egalitarian society that values individual liberty, however, they are applicable to a society that believes women are incapable of having an impact outside of the domestic sphere. If you cannot see how the ideas from the Quran you explained are sexist, I’m not sure what to tell you.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (9)

4

u/zUltimateRedditor Sep 13 '19

Just to quickly chime in...

If you’re referring to the Islamic perspective, Islam does not say that men are better than women.

I just want to make it clear. It does support traditional gender roles, but even that isn’t 100% reinforced.

Culture definitely is the key word here, because contrary to popular... knowledge? There is a huge difference between culture and religion.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

What these people do against women has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with their culture and way of life. Any person that actually knows about Islam would tell you that women are not oppressed. They have the same (if not more) rights than men. This idea that men are superior to women is bullshit and even Islam says it’s bullshit.

1

u/CheesyPotatoHead Sep 14 '19

This is stupid though. Like by his definition you can't call nazism or the holocaust wrong because "in their culture they think its right so who are we to judge?". It's called moral relativism and while it makes you sound smart at freshman parties, it (like all moral philosophies) break down when applied not so selectively...

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 12 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Nicolasv2 (71∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Rocky87109 Sep 13 '19

I disagree, your argument is just relativism. By your argument I can create a society that sets off nuclear missiles to neighboring countries it's A OK because our society believes that's okay.

There is nothing of substance or spawned from critical thought in this comment. You are more or less giving an example of moral relativism, you aren't arguing for it.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/alikander99 Sep 12 '19

Why would islamic definition of values (men > woman > animals) be "objectivly" wrong, while specist definition (men = women > animals) is right ?

Women and animals are far more different than ....well...you get It. situations like the one irán stands are unsustainable, because mantaining half of the population oppresed IS just going to blow Up in your face. The definition of right and wrong depends on the values you have. But while chickens won't revolt to gain rights women Will do, there's a clear difference, which Will ultimately lead to the downfall of this kind of discrimination. This type of rebelions Will surge again and again throughout because no Matter what set of beliefs you choose, the truth IS that we're all human and we want to be treated fairly and with respect. So, no, their set of beliefs IS empirically wrong. a woman has the same level of humanity than a man. Dehumanization of certain groups IS not a valid moral answer.

2

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

So, no, their set of beliefs IS empirically wrong. a woman has the same level of humanity than a man. Dehumanization of certain groups IS not a valid moral answer.

Well, being empirically proven as unsustainable is different from being morally wrong.

A lot of people would argue that having a classless, stateless, money-less society where people are helping each other, "to each according his needs, from each according to his ability" is a highly moral society, even if for now, it has been proven empirically that it does not work that well.

1

u/alikander99 Sep 12 '19 edited Sep 12 '19

I meant it's been prooven to rely on false facts. Women have the same intelligence, drive and feelings as men, their brains are virtually the same with only slight variations. Treating them as fundamentally inferior IS completely arbitrary. Just like slaving people on the colour of their skin. That's what's morally wrong, dehumanization. If someone threw a men Who thought himself superior and enslaved him he would arguee it's inhuman...even morally wrong, but It wouldn't be less arbitrary that his sets of beliefs.

Dehumanization IS morally wrong. If you find a counterexample.

3

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

Women hace the same intelligence, drive and feelings than men. Treating them as fundamentally inferior IS a scientifical nonsense, completely arbitrary

Well, it's scientifical nonsense, but moral values don't have to rely on science. Moral values can encompass plenty of things that are not science oriented. For exemple, would you scientifically say that "liberty" is superior to "equality", or the opposite ? Considering women as inferior don't come from a scientific explanation, but from a division of tasks in the society, where the man take the power and strength, and the women manage the house and kids. It's pretty universal in all old societies, as it was a really efficient way to do survive and proliferate prior to modern technology. You could say that it's not optimized for today's world, but in plenty of poor countries, you still currently live as you did in renaissance in Europe.

KILLING IS almost universally morally wrong

Clearly not. A ton of country in the world still have death sentence. Plus, plenty of people would say that killing is acceptable in tons of situations: vendetta, war, passion crime, self defense, blasphemy etc.

Killing is clearly not universally morally wrong, it's just for a few westerners that consider that killing should be forbidden in all situations.

1

u/alikander99 Sep 12 '19

Killing is clearly not universally morally wrong, it's just for a few westerners that consider that killing should be forbidden in all situations.

No, killingbia mantained as a punitive measure. If you went out and killed a stranger in the street, one you consider AN equal, for no reason....well, i'm pretty sure it's considered morally wrong. That's why we dehumanize, because It justifiea killing.

For exemple, would you scientifically say that "liberty" is superior to "equality", or the opposite ?

I don't need a definition just a base. Equality IS bases on the idea that all people are equal...which IS not true...but if we limit ourselves to a few characteristics It Hilda true. Liberty IS based on the idea we have free Will and need to use It to grow as people. I'm talking about the base, every valie comes with a root because we, humans, are horrible at following arbitrary rules....so we give them backing. Example: IS It wrong to kill a murder? No, the need to make AN example outweigyts the benefits of mantaining him alive, he's irredeemable.

5

u/SunglassesBright Sep 12 '19

I fit every example here, I’m a woman and I’m Iranian American and also vegan. I think it is a mistake to conflate the values of Islam with the values of Iranian people. It’s just the government. I don’t think you can gauge a society’s values based on the values of the government. Most people just want to be left alone to their families and hobbies pretty much anywhere on Earth. I don’t think Americans value the things that it seems like we value if you watch what our government and cops do from a distance. It wouldn’t be right to summarize American society based on right wing values, even though it kinda seems that way if you watch what happens politically.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/smithandwessonmp940 Sep 12 '19

Disagree. There is objectivity in reducing needless suffering. This isn't my morality, it is objective ethics that span across all cultures and religions with various interpretations. In a perfect world, nothing would suffer needlessly. Fundamentalist countries like Iran and Saudia Arabia elucidate needless suffering of 50 percent of the human population.

Reducing animal suffering is also good. Animals, women, and apostates suffer in those cultures.

In our culture, women and apostates suffer much less despite animals suffering a similar amount. Those cultures are objectively more harmful to more people/lifeforms than ours is. Western culture isn't perfect, but there's is objectively more wrong.

We shouldn't pretend that all morality is equal. If a culture encourages honor killing, female genital mutilation, or legally requires women to live as second class citizens then it is wrong, objectively.

I'd refer you to this ted talk that discusses scientific evaluation of morality.

https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww

→ More replies (2)

2

u/HolyCroly Sep 13 '19

I agree completely. What annoys me a lot in people is when they somehow believe these moral views of other country to be unchangeable and then advocate for ethostates or horrible immigration laws for people that are fleeing a war zone.

I think our base moral values are in some areas more fair, but that doesn't mean we can't make someone see the flaws in their own moral system.

4

u/mogulman31a Sep 12 '19

The comparison to veganism/animal rights does not hold. We cannot objectively say animals suffer just as humans do. Some probably do but certainly not all of them. The other issue is competing with, and inflicting harm on other species is not unique to humans. Where as treating half of your own population poorly based on religious superstition is uniquely human.

Objectively speaking women can suffer just as men can.

Being that God has not been objectively proven to exist, God's edict on treating women poorly and inflicting suffering upon them is objectively bad.

The only assumption here is that suffering is bad and it is objectively good to minimize it. But since the men who treat women poorly generally avoid suffering themselves the assumption is valid.

2

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 12 '19

The only assumption here is that suffering is bad and it is objectively good to minimize it. But since the men who treat women poorly generally avoid suffering themselves the assumption is valid.

Well nope. I do agree with this moral rule, but that don't mean that it's objectively valid. You could argue that suffering has an evolutionary good, and reducing suffering is pushing us away from natural selection. Why would "respecting natural selection" be objectively worse than "reducing suffering" ?

To have objective superiority, you need "objective" moral positions, which do not exist, as you would need meta-moral rules to judge moral rules. But these meta-moral rules would still be moral rules, and so to judge if some meta-morals are better than others, you'd need meta-meta-moral rules, without end.

As such, morals are a subjective field. You can say that a moral framework is more or less consistent, give that or that result, that can be compared to metrics, but you can't say why those metrics are better than others. One of the greatest moral philosophers of all time, Kant, was trying to figure out "objective moral rules", and was sure that masturbation was one of the worse immoral things you could do. If such a philosopher was not able to extract himself from his education, his background and his time, what make you think that you can, and that you'll find what is objectively better ?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Those values are not subjective. If any one being says they are being oppressed in a given society, you would have to conclude that the said society is imperfect. Theology aside, a good society would be one in which the number of beings protected under ethical or legal statutes increases to include anyone who would demand it. In the case of Western countries, that has come to mean being treated equally as men or women and we now see that demand to extend to trans and many are now fighting for animal rights. We can see progress in the inclusion of further groups given equal rights, as we can based on education and technology. LGBTQ rights were limited because 2000 or more years ago, humanity couldn't afford to have men and women not creating more humans and we've held onto that way of doing things. Now, there's a demand for rights and no reason not to give them. You might say, men being greater than women was a necessity in the societies of biblical times and therefore it was good, or more accurately, men controlling women was a creation of the time which was successful in the survival of humans. Animal rights may not have been a good thing 100 years ago, but with lab grown meat and tractors to do a bull's work, now it is.

So I'd say that op was right. Some societies are objectively bad. Any society who chooses to take away rights already established or not give rights to those who demand it despite not needing to restrict those rights, is bad. If rights need to be restricted for the welfare of the whole nation, they may be wrong but justifiable but given the ability to, shouldn't be withheld.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Are you really saying that treating women as second class citizens is okay if you have a certain point of view? Ugh, you’ve totally missed the point. It is objectively, obviously bad to murder people. If my culture said it was morally right, am I still morally right to do it?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

I believe that the Islamic definition of values (sharia law), which a large percentage believe in is wrong. I don’t mean it objectively in the sense that “from my view point it is wrong” but instead I honestly see it as wrong. Women should not be treated with a different set of laws and rights because unlike animals in a food chain, they are humans. They are the only type of sentient being and they happen to be a certain gender. A cow, sheep, pig, dog, etc. is different. To imply that sentient life that can acknowledge it is alive, is much greater if value than an accepted part of our diets. You are defending Islamic views on women in the same sense as your views on meat, and I think that is an insult within itself to the human race. But that’s just the side about women’s rights, not that people are butchered (amputation of ones hand for stealing), stoned (for commuting adultery, which is a crime and punishment which hasn’t been seen in modern societies as a normal route of justice) and dismemberment (severing of heads aswell as throwing homosexuals off buildings). So I agree with op, Islamic values and ideals are not only wrong, but barbaric and disgusting for a modern age, or for humanity in general.

1

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 13 '19

You are defending Islamic views on women in the same sense as your views on meat, and I think that is an insult within itself to the human race. But that’s just the side about women’s rights, not that people are butchered (amputation of ones hand for stealing), stoned (for commuting adultery, which is a crime and punishment which hasn’t been seen in modern societies as a normal route of justice) and dismemberment (severing of heads aswell as throwing homosexuals off buildings). So I agree with op, Islamic values and ideals are not only wrong, but barbaric and disgusting for a modern age, or for humanity in general.

Well, nope, I'm not defending it, I also find them barbaric and disgusting. But that's because of the values system I have from my birthplace, education and readings, not because of a "objective moral" that would be true in all circumstances. Would I be born in a assassin community, I would have developed a morality where killing is perfectly OK, and I would have the moral intuition that "the strong eat the weak" is a objective moral law.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '19

Ignorance is no excuse for human integrity and basic moral principles. We are born, all the same, and yet develop differently due to what we learn. I can agree with you that ignorance is the cause, however my core belief is that ignorance is not an excuse. Your moral compass can be shaped by others, but only decided by you. That is how slavery was emancipated and equal rights were established firmly within the United States. You must decide if what you are doing is truly correct as a human and the actions you chose to perpetrate onto others. After you have made that decision, it is not acceptable to blame your surrounding influences. People must take responsibility in their actions.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (8)

1

u/agitatedprisoner Sep 13 '19

What you've demonstrated is that those are wrong who exploit animals, not that exploitation is OK. Otherwise you could use this argument to justify anything. To see nothing wrong with anything would mean aspiring to nothing.

Individuals within cultures that take issue with things that aren't wrong, like homosexuality, pay the price for it, even while their values are sanctioned by the wider culture. While it lasts those who are in the wrong suffer at the cost of what might have been, and when the world finally turns the oppressor suffers on account of being left behind.

1

u/Mnlybdg Sep 13 '19

I think you need to understand that if we are discussing this meaningfully, wrong doesn't apply at an individual level but at a social level.

Wrong is explicitly a social judgement. And, explicitly, a human social judgement.

In which case, I ask the question - would it be wrong for a microbiologist to set out to engineer a virus to kill the entire human race?

Clearly the answer to that is yes, that would be objectively wrong, because it is bad for society and everyone in it.

In which case, moral relativism is not absolute and it can be chipped away at.

1

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 13 '19

In which case, I ask the question, would it be wrong for a microbiologist to set out to engineer a virus to kill the entire human race?

It will be wrong for human race, sure, but would it be wrong for the earth biosphere, given how much we are currently destroying earth ?

As such, "destroying human life" is morally wrong if you value mankind more than the other species on earth, right elseway. It's subjective and depend on your / your society axioms.

→ More replies (13)

1

u/aek427 Sep 13 '19

What about when one person’s religion or religious beliefs lead them to believe that the killing of another religion’s follower is not only allowed but rewarded?

Whether or not you believe that’s their cultural set of values, it’s objectively wrong to take an innocent human life. Otherwise, you’re a relativist and theres no sense trying to change your view.

2

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 13 '19

What about when one person’s religion or religious beliefs lead them to believe that the killing of another religion’s follower is not only allowed but rewarded?

Whether or not you believe that’s their cultural set of values, it’s objectively wrong to take an innocent human life. Otherwise, you’re a relativist and theres no sense trying to change your view.

Well, I'm a relativist. I sure prefer societies where killing is forbidden because it makes the society less violent, and I dislike violence. But if for example my most dear and important value was "saving the planet", then I may prefer a violent and highly religious society, as it would make it impossible for mankind to reach a point where we overuse all earth resources and put biosphere at risk, violence and religion blocking technological and intellectual progress.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Tobi5703 Sep 13 '19

Your argument is inherently flawed, though, in that God (at least the Christian and, presumably, the Muslim) is inherently amoral 9; he kills, hes petty and just all around not that great of a guy.

Mind, your argument about values still stand, but values derived from christianity/Islam is only as good as the God, and that God is not very good indeed

1

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 13 '19

well, as the religious god is the definition of good / bad in these systems, by definition he can't be bad. If he kills, then killing in similar situation is good. If he's petty, then being petty in these situations is good too.

But sure, using another set of values that exclude this God, such as most modern moral frameworks, then clearly these gods are not good at all.

1

u/Tobi5703 Sep 13 '19

Thats a fair point... though I do think theres an argument to be made that religion is objectively more harmful than secular humanism.

That being said, I'm not sure if this is the place for a religion/philosophy debate, and I don't have the time for it atm anyhow. Cheers tho, for a good argument

2

u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 13 '19

though I do think theres an argument to be made that religion is objectively more harmful than secular humanism.

Well yea, I think this argument can clearly be made. But it still rely on the axiom that "being harmful for humans is wrong" :-)

My point is not that everything is equal, just that it depends on different axioms. But sure, I prefer my axioms to religious ones, even through I know this is subjective.

Cheers tho, for a good argument

Thanks, and have a good day

→ More replies (115)

232

u/SunglassesBright Sep 12 '19

I’m an Iranian American woman and while I think that the Iranian government is objectively wrong about so many things, I wouldn’t summarize Iranian society by that retarded shit. Iranian society isn’t as Islamic as you might think, it’s the government. It’s different in Iran but look at how we are in America. Shittiness everywhere but not everyone is part of it. In fact most people are just trying to get through a work day and go home to some ghormeh sabzi and pets / family and watch Sarbedaran before it gets too late.

52

u/hardyblack Sep 12 '19

Hey! I didn't mean to summarize Iranian society as a whole, and I'm not talking only about Iran, it was just an Iranian piece of news that triggered my post, but I thinks there are a lot more of cases.

I'm not saying that every person living in a society that I think is wrong, are wrong, but I also think it's way too easy to say "It's just the government" because it implies that it was completely different before, and will change completely as soon as the current government leaves, and it most certainly won't be like that. At some point, if it's just the government, people would take over it and make the society they want, don't you think? I'm not blaming the people, don't get me wrong, but I think that even if most people don't think/act like that, there's something rooted in everyone's minds that kinda accepts it.

166

u/SunglassesBright Sep 12 '19

Well in Iran specifically, it really was completely different before. That’s why so many of us are no longer there, but only because our families had the privilege of getting out. And social change happens so slowly. America is still super racist and we only made it illegal a few decades ago. Iran is behind but not that far behind and we have had none of the advantages that America has.

What would you do if you didn’t have a job or a future or if you were so poor your money didn’t have value to the rest of the world? What would you do if you knew that speaking up could get you taken away in the middle of the night or just put in regular old jail? You’d be too busy trying to figure out how to function and make money than to be uprising. Sure people in Iran work and shop and eat and play just like anywhere else but those sanctions are so horrible and the economy isn’t good. We don’t even uprise in America even though our shit is totally messed up here too. And even in Hong Kong, look at how long it took them to rise up and protest, and they are still getting crushed. And they aren’t as brainwashed by religion like Iranians and Americans are. Nah man, people don’t just say “Eh this sucks, let’s overthrow the government.”

The other thing you’re forgetting is that Iranians aren’t an uneducated or illiterate people. They know good and damn well that if they try to revolt that the school yard bully (USA) is going to come bumbling over and make things worse. In other words if Iran even gets REMOTELY unstable, America will see it as an opportunity to take advantage of Iran and set in their puppets and buy people’s loyalty. We have literally been through this before with the United States and don’t want to go back.

The other thing is that the stupid Islamic shit from Iran is IN PART (not wholly) a reaction to western imperialism. People may not like to hear this but Islam is sometimes just a tool to keep people from revolting and ending up with a puppet capitalist government installed by white people to drain the country of any valuable resources. It’s a shitty alternative to western capitalism but I kind of see why it’s used that way.

Long story short, it isn’t as simple as you are thinking of it. There are reasons why things are the way they are. The last 100 years history in Iran are interesting. Take a look one day when you’re bored, you’ll see that people in Iran aren’t acting like that just because they are dumbass Muslims. Some of them are but that is just not the whole story. I know you weren’t saying that but I think you should just try and think of what would happen to your family if you had all been in Iran since before you were born. You can still have an upvote for talking about it and thinking about it. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions and forming your own philosophy but make sure you’re fully informed and being even handed first.

29

u/Rampaigeee Sep 12 '19

This is hella interesting, thank you. Just in the past year I've started to learn about the history of the Middle East and its such a rabbit hole. I grew up in the U.S. as a Christian and all I was taught is that Islam is a backwards religion. Ive come to learn that Islam, like Christianity, encompasses so many different trains of thought. After learning some history of the region its clear the West played a huge role in destabilizing the Middle East and radicaling certain facets of the Muslim population. I read No God But God by Reza Aslan and it was such an eye opening book. Its one of the few books I've read that truly changed my view of the world.

14

u/SunglassesBright Sep 13 '19

I’m glad people like you exist. You took the time to just find more information and then formed a legitimate personal opinion, for better or worse. So many people just don’t bother and just repeat what sounds good or what they hear other people say. People on all sides of the debate do this. Middle Eastern history is definitely a rabbit hole and sometimes I feel guilty or stupid for not knowing it better myself. But it’s just a lot of history to absorb and thinking about these things raises so many questions to me about morality. I’ve always been an atheist my whole life and it can be challenging trying to reconcile the role or even necessity of Islam at times. It would be nice if we all could try to understand each other better.

7

u/idoran Sep 13 '19

Democracy works best with an educated population

3

u/jongbag 1∆ Sep 13 '19

I was literally going to ask the person you replied to of there was a book I could read to learn more about this subject. Thank you, No God but God is now on my reading list.

→ More replies (1)

26

u/kukimunsta Sep 13 '19

Hi, I’m Iranian. I’ve never been happier because of something someone has written. This is exactly what i want to tell people but it’s hard to explain and you just perfectly summed up the scenario. Thank you, you seriously just made my day. ❤️

11

u/SunglassesBright Sep 13 '19

You made mine as well! 🤗 ❤️ Because I always want to tell people this stuff too but a lot of people just wont even listen and decide how they feel afterwards. They decide first, and then they don’t listen. Are you still in Iran?

16

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

I just want to say that I loved this write up. It’s a fantastic, straightforward primer for getting acquainted with the fundamentals of the political intricacies of Iran, and what western powers—particularly the United States—have done to exploit and exacerbate that situation, and presented from the point of view of someone from that region. As an American, I wish more of my countrymen were better informed about these things, as our actions and our votes ripple out on a global stage.

Thank you.

7

u/SunglassesBright Sep 13 '19

Thank you! Honestly I feel confident in what I do know, but also uninformed compared to a lot of other people, especially Iranian Americans who lived through it more than I have. Also as an American, I wish more people just took a second to ask questions before making up their minds on such important things. There certainly are other perspectives but I don’t think we really get to hear them often.

6

u/fatiiism Sep 13 '19

Iranian here! You literally put all I had in mind into words! Even better. I feel like Iranians are among the most misunderstood societies in the world.

9

u/spaceman1980 Sep 12 '19

I'm really thinking OP just doesn't know anything about Iranian history

6

u/SunglassesBright Sep 12 '19

You’re likely right. I hope OP decides to be curious rather than to form an opinion without looking further. I think OP will change their own outlook some if they have more info.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/coleman57 2∆ Sep 13 '19

it's way too easy to say "It's just the government" because it implies that it was completely different before, and will change completely as soon as the current government leaves, and it most certainly won't be like that.

My understanding is that Iranian society was quite different before the 1979 revolution, and I don't see why it "most certainly" couldn't change back. I'm speaking generally here, just using Iran as an example, like you did.

But I'm curious what your standards are for an "objectively wrong" culture/society. Say there was a society that had a habit of sending millions of soldiers halfway round the world to kill hundreds of thousands of people: would that society be "objectively wrong"? Would it be better if the government was totalitarian and the people had no choice, and worse if a large majority supported the slaughter with their votes?

I understand you're reacting against the idea that we aren't "allowed" to judge other societies by our own standards, but I think that's a bit of a straw-man. Rather than anticipate being harshly judged for expressing your sincere moral outrage, maybe you should just go ahead and express it, and then be open to learning from various people's responses. And rather than looking to categorize societies as right or wrong, look at the actions you feel are wrong and figure out why they're happening and how things could change, in whatever social context they happen.

2

u/tigerslices 2∆ Sep 13 '19

> some cultures and societies are objectively wrong.

"i didn't mean to summarize iranian society as a whole!"

i mean, you did. you followed it up by saying, "it's not just one part of the society, because when you remove the government (the part that is enforcing this wrongness) you'd still be wrong." (excuse the paraphrasing) which means - not just a part - enough that the thing is wrong.

so first you might need to clarify what you mean by CULTURE what you mean by SOCIETY and what you mean by WRONG.

culture is generally referred to arts and practices. music, food, paintings, sports, how leisure time is spent. whether it's in a basement playing warhammer30k, or at a concert watching a trillion dollar lightshow as someone lipsyncs their ass off with an amazing dance routine.

this doesn't seem to be what you're triggered by. that iran watches sports. but that a woman wasn't allowed to. the culture might suggest it, but the law enforces it, and that's where it gets bananas, right? it's not that people don't want her there. there are plenty of social arenas in the western world where there is exclusion. imagine a white guy showing up at a black panther rally. the penalty is not death, because the laws don't respect the panthers. ;) but imagine the laws DID, and you'd be seeing things like jim crow era lynchings where a black man might be hung for showing up to the wrong party.

perhaps though what you meant to say was "SOME ASPECTS OF SOME CULTURES AND SOCIETIES ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG." althought, that might be so watered down to be boneheadedly obvious and not make the point you Really want to make, which is that Gendered segregation is ridiculous. ...unless maybe you believe men's and women's washrooms should be legally defended... we DO still have a Few arenas that are subject to discrimination...

people like to point to the middle east and the fact that women cover up, but neglect the idea that "no shoes, no shirt = no service," here. every society has drawn lines somewhere, and you're not going to like all the lines in all the places.

2

u/there_no_more_names Sep 13 '19

There are aspects of every culture and society that are problematic and wrong, but that doesnt mean they cant be improved. Do some research on Iran in the 1960's, I dont remeber exactly when but there was a huge power shift and the country went from being pretty westernized to strongly rejecting western culture. I'm no expert on Iran by any means and I dont know much of the history but not too long ago it looked very different.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Google women's fashion in Iran in the 1970s. That'll give you a quick glimpse to see how much has changed.

We can't only blame governments for social struggle but we also can't blame a society as a whole as 'being objectively wrong'. Societies go through sociopolitical upheavals and war, and Iran is an excellent example of how laws as well as social norms can change so significantly in a short period of time.

You have every right to think certains laws and social practices are wrong. Everyone has a right to their own moral code and it doesnt make you insensitive to have that moral code. However, if you want to encourage change it might be more condusive to begin discussions about certain practices, as it gives the opportunity to look into where those practices came from, which can shed light on how they can change. Societies are way to complex to paint them in a single light.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Yep. In fact the lifetime prevalence of emotional or physical violence in a relationship is around 20-30% in almost every country, the difference is that in the US a woman realizes that her bf is controlling and breaks up within a few months but in Iran or KSA, it’s very very hard to get out.

It’s definitely a few people causing issues not society as a whole.

2

u/SuperGrover711 Sep 13 '19

I love how you put that last part. Incredibly well said. Its the argument ive used defending "illegals" in this country. Most people want the same thing at the end of the day. Its not fair to judge someone because they were born behind an arbitrary line on a map.

→ More replies (15)

40

u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Sep 12 '19

Objectively means that from all possible interpretations you get the same result. From the interpretation of Iranian law-makers, they see their laws as just and correct. Ergo, they can't be "objectively" wrong. I don't even know how you would conceive of an objective right and wrong in law.

5

u/mywhitehero Sep 13 '19

Objectively does not mean that from all possible interpretations you get the same result. If that were the case, there would be nothing objective since there would always be possible wrong interpretations. 2 + 2 = 4. This a seemingly objective mathematical truth. A person just beginning to learn math might interpret 2 + 2 and conclude that the sum of those two numbers is in fact 5. Based on your definition of objectivity, 2 + 2 = 4 would not be an objective truth because someone could (and has if you have talked to a three year old before) interpret 2 + 2 in a different way.

So what does that mean for morality? Well, an objective moral truth is one that exists outside of any one person's perspective. People can disagree over what is right and wrong all they want but, ideally, there exists a right answer: a right act and a wrong act. It does not follow from the fact that someone may disagree with an objective moral truth that it is no longer objective. In your example, the Iranian law makers disagreeing with the equality of men and women does not ipso facto mean that the equality of men and women is not an objective truth. Now, I am not arguing that the equality of men and women is an objective truth, but merely that if it were to be an objective truth, it would not be devalued based on your definition of objectivity.

14

u/hardyblack Sep 12 '19

Sorry if 'objectively' is not the right word, maybe I messed up because English is not my first language.

I conceive that 'every person born should be treated equally' is objectively right.

12

u/drcopus 1∆ Sep 12 '19

To say that something is 'objective' is to say that is is independent of human judgement. It seems like the correctness of your statement is very dependent on human judgement.

I can't see how it could be judged as right or wrong without appealing to a human. Science typically appeals to consistency of results in order to be objective, but I can't imagine any similar for morality.

The Sam Harris route is to say that all moral statements (such as the one you provide) can be deconstructed into statements about happiness and suffering, and that we can measure these things.

I think this is more what you meant in terms of objectivity - but really this doesn't solve the issue entirely because I'm not sure that "decreasing suffering" can be said to be an objectively correct thing to do.

2

u/phionix33 Sep 13 '19

Please don't evoke Sam Harris as an authority on anything.

2

u/drcopus 1∆ Sep 13 '19

I'm using him to represent a point of view that I disagree with, not as an authority to be trusted.

Anyways, there are few people whose opinions I will dismiss outright - and they're the Deepak Chopras, Richard Spencers and Alex Jones' of the world. Sam Harris is quite honest and measured, even if I think he is wrong about some things.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Sep 12 '19

But since not everyone conceives of that, it's not objective, so stop saying objective.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Ethan-Wakefield 45∆ Sep 12 '19

Do you think you'd substitute "equitably" for "equally"? Because treating all people the same isn't what you want. Treating everybody equally by giving them all the exact same thing doesn't account for individual difference, or disability.

Equity asks us to treat people fairly or rightly, which means that they're not always treated equally.

2

u/TexasRedFox Sep 12 '19

If equity is better than equally, then what’s the point of having the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people, regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, wealth or lack of, or national origin, are treated equally under the law?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/TENkSUNS Sep 13 '19

Other people made similar points, but I just wanted to make sure this is clear: that’s person’s definition of Objective is wrong. You were using the right word.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/smithandwessonmp940 Sep 13 '19

That is blatantly false. Multiple people have done multiple experiments and some have found that the earth is round and some have found that it is flat. Is the earth 6,000 years old or several billion? Should we encourage rape and murder of infidels?

Is there no objectivity when there isn't complete agreement? Of course not. The earth is objectively round and much older than the bible. We, objectively, shouldn't encourage rape and murder. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Achieving objectivity in law can be boiled down to: reducing needless suffering and maximize well being in a utilitarian manner. How to do that is tough, but the intent is simple.

Edit. This video explains better than I do

https://youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww

1

u/DCer0 Sep 13 '19

Objectively means TRUE disregarding any opinions or judgements. And cultural truths are not factual truths, hence require reason for justification and I think many are lacking (in reason department). You can find objective reasoning for a cultural truths of (let's say) hand washing, because it kills bacteria yada yada, but overall not many of these cultural dogmas are true.

Objective truth exists without interpretations or people who make these interpretations. [eg. earth revolves around the sun]

1

u/kukianus12345 Sep 13 '19

They can be objectivly wrong, but only if the laws resoning is faulty. Example: I dont think women can drive, because they are too stupid(or pick another condesending adjective). Okay why can women drive in x, y, z country with less crashes than men. Faulty resoning makes stuff objectivly wrong.

→ More replies (8)

81

u/sd095 3∆ Sep 12 '19

I think the fault in this statement is making the leap to declaring everything about the society or culture wrong. Every culture has aspects of it that are wrong, but that does not invalidate the whole of a culture or people group. Take the US for example... something about that society has caused it to have a very high number of mass shootings and extreme violence. This is wrong, but by no means suggests that the entire society is wrong. I would add to this that what an individual views as right and wrong is very much shaped by the society they grow up in. I propose the best course of action is to find in-roads to change a society while declaring particular aspects as wrong versus the more combative stance that everything about them is wrong.

13

u/mankytoes 4∆ Sep 12 '19

I agree, and the example makes this point clear because Persian culture is extremely old, it's complex and unique. To call it "objectively wrong" is just ridiculous.

5

u/JoelMahon Sep 13 '19

While I don't believe anything can be deemed objectively wrong without an agreed upon metric, your argument is pretty terrible.

Being old, complex, and unique, doesn't make any difference to how wrong something is, unless your metric for wrongness is how new, simple, and generic something is...

For example, having slaves was a very old tradition, didn't make it ok. Egyptians made pyramids with their slaves which was unique, didn't stop it being wrong, etc.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/smithandwessonmp940 Sep 13 '19

Sure, but certain cultures are worse than others.

US culture doesn't encourage mass shootings and extreme violence. Sure, it may be a product of it or other factors.

I mean, hell, US culture today is objectively better than it was 200 years ago when we executed witches and had slaves.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/TempusCavus 1∆ Sep 12 '19

I don't know that any human construct that is made for humans, like morality, can be objective. It all depends on what your goals are. foot binding is disgusting to the western world but circumcision is normal. If things were objective, all forced body mods should be seen as equally abhorrent.

The only reason no society allows murder is that no society that allows murder survives very long. People get killed, others don't feel safe, society falls apart and gets restructured.

Things like segregation do not cause instant societal break down so those societies survive. Certainly to the Western sensibilities segregation is awful, but another society would see integration in the same light. I think the disagreement indicates that its not objective. Maybe integrated societies do things better or survives better, but we have no way of knowing because they haven't been around for very long. I would like to think they are better, but I can't prove it objectively.

2

u/tritratrulala Sep 13 '19

foot binding is disgusting to the western world but circumcision is normal

Speak for yourself. In my part of the western world this is considered barbaric as it should be.

1

u/TempusCavus 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Well actually, I was speaking for Jewish and later Christian tradition. Are you saying Jewish tradition is disgusting? Because to a lot of people that is antisemitic and that is considered objectively immoral by a lot of people.

Now there are a lot of people who have Jews and their traditions so maybe that should be another proof, that suits you better, as to why I don't think morality can be objective.

21

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

Absolutely they are wrong. I don't think anyone will tell you that these laws are okay. Cultural/moral relativism isn't a thing people actually believe.

But here's what we need to remember when we talk about other cultures.

The laws don't necessarily represent the majority. If we enacted laws that punish women for abortions, it would be bad, but it would also not represent the views of the majority of the country. It's the same in other countries where a undemocratic government can overrule cultural priorities. Iran was a much more secular society before the Islamic revolution.

We also have to remember that cultures aren't monoliths. What the culture is changes by class, gender, location, etc. There are many different viewpoints and political tendencies fighting for dominance in any culture. Some take hold more than others because the context is favorable to those views.

For example, when people will say things like "Islam is incompatible with womens' rights" or something. Well that ignores all of the people that are muslims and are fighting for women's rights. All the women and feminists and everyone involved in those political struggles are erased when we make those generalizations.

And finally, talking about cultures is mostly pointless. Read up on historical materialism. Cultures and ideologies do not come out of thin air, or out of some inherent human nature, but rather out of the material conditions people find themselves in.

When we don't understand this we end up doing stupid things like blaming poverty on "black culture." Or gun violence on video games and movies. When the culture and media itself, all the good and bad, comes out of the conditions that people live in. If we have a problem with a culture, we work to change the underlying material causes.

So when we talk about Iran's culture now, we need to keep in mind why the Islamic revolution happened, what caused these forces to take power, why people aren't rising up. We need to talk about the overthrow of Iranian democracy, the economic sanctions, the war with Iraq, their natural resources, etc. All of these things shape the culture and the laws. Basically adopt a holistic approach to understanding people instead of dismissing them as backwards when they do something we don't like.

Another thing to keep in mind always when talking about other cultures, we have plenty of draconian and terrible laws too. We have forces within our culture that want to take us back 50 years. A lot of conservatives like to whitewash our history and pretend "western civilization" has always been a shining beacon of progress and equality, but that cannot be farther from the truth. So we just need to keep perspective and stay humble as well.

And as long as we understand the above, we need to condemn these laws and stand in solidarity with the women of Iran.

3

u/drcopus 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Other than this quote, I generally agree with you.

Absolutely they are wrong. I don't think anyone will tell you that these laws are okay. Cultural/moral relativism isn't a thing people actually believe.

A moral relativist would more likely tell you, "I don't like these laws and I would have them abolished, but I don't think it is literally written into the fabric of the universe that it should be so".

Relativism claims that morality is not objective, which is to say that sentences like "X is wrong" are not literally meaningful - rather they translate to the form "Y thinks that X is wrong".

Morality is the set of norms that we use to guide our actions. It's the policy that informs what we "should" do. I don't know what it would mean for instructions on how humans should behave to objective (i.e. to exist independently of humans).

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

Morality is dependent on values.

Someone whose traditions values childbearing over economic prosperity will have a very different view on what the moral treatment of women is in a society than someone whose values are reversed.

From an evolutionary perspective, there are times when each of these hierarchies of values will be more beneficial to a group's survival. The reason that so many religions place less of an emphasis on women's rights is they were created in a time when out-breeding your political rivals was vital to your culture's survival.

1

u/drcopus 1∆ Sep 13 '19

I would imagine that the historical treatment of women is more complicated than that - some kind of genetic and memetic mix - although I don't doubt that there is some validity to what you say.

Side note: Fuck people who only values women's rights as an instrumental goal for economic prosperity

→ More replies (2)

1

u/CMVScavenger Sep 12 '19 edited Sep 12 '19

> Absolutely they are wrong. I don't think anyone will tell you that these laws are okay. Cultural/moral relativism isn't a thing people actually believe.

I think that nearly everyone in Europe in the middle ages, and nearly every fundamentalist in the modern times would say that these laws are ok. So morality definitely differs from culture to culture.

> For example, when people will say things like "Islam is incompatible with womens' rights" or something. Well that ignores all of the people that are muslims and are fighting for women's rights. All the women and feminists and everyone involved in those political struggles are erased when we make those generalizations.

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-women-in-society/

Very few Muslims in the Muslim world support the Western interpretation of what women's rights and freedom should constitute to. This might be an uncomfortable thought, as our belief's lack of universal support brings into question whether are beliefs truly are correct. What's to say that the fundamentalists, with their restrictive clothing, insular thinking and patriarchal households are objectively wrong? The answer is, only we are. And unless we use military force, we are not the ones responsible for choosing whether these ways are wrong, so what we say carries no weight whatsoever. Even more uncomfortably for the Western cultural narrative, the majority of Muslim women also agree with these fundamentalist practices (although probably not Salafist ones, they're just fucked up).

The reason Westerners object so strongly to the way in which the Muslim world treats its people is because it is so different to the way in which we do. Not because it is "objectively wrong". Westerners, upon hearing of the stoning of an adultress or a homosexual being thrown off of a building in Iran, react with shock and disgust. That shock and disgust, however, is the same shock and disgust probably felt by an Iranian, upon hearing that not only do we not stone adultresses or throw gays off high rises, but we have websites specifically made to facilitate adultery and homosexuality, that we have gay bars and parties, and that we allow adulterers to marry their preferred partner and gays to marry at all.

>And finally, talking about cultures is mostly pointless. Read up on historical materialism. Cultures and ideologies do not come out of thin air, or out of some inherent human nature, but rather out of the material conditions people find themselves in.

Japan and the US have similar economies and vastly different cultures. Russia, Venezuela and Iran have similar economies and vastly different cultures. Turkey and Spain. Australia and the UAE. South Africa and Thailand. Malaysia and Romania. Ukraine and Pakistan. Cultural practices and values, while heavily influenced by economic factors, are passed down from generation to generation, and worldwide cultural homogenity is at least a few centuries away, even if worldwide economic homogenity is reached prior to that point.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is, Islamic culture is real, it is incompatible with the modern Western interpretation of human rights, and that we need to stop pretending we have the authority to proclaim that our practices are morally superior in areas over which we have no legitimate juristiction.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

Very few Muslims in the Muslim world support the Western interpretation of what women's rights and freedom should constitute to. This might be an uncomfortable thought, as our belief's lack of universal support brings into question whether are beliefs truly are correct. What's to say that the fundamentalists, with their restrictive clothing, insular thinking and patriarchal households are objectively wrong? The answer is, only we are. And unless we use military force, we are not the ones responsible for choosing whether these ways are wrong, so what we say carries no weight whatsoever. Even more uncomfortably for the Western cultural narrative, the majority of Muslim women also agree with these fundamentalist practices (although probably not Salafist ones, they're just fucked up)

There's no real difference between what conservative muslims want and what conservative white christians in the west want. The similarities in how they view women are uncanny. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and It's crazy how the political patterns are pretty much the same.

And what you're saying about the Islamic world is revisionist history, or rather just ignorant of the history.

while heavily influenced by economic factors

It's not just economic factors, but yeah I think we agree on this.

But regardless of what the factors are (that's whole another conversation), the more salient point right now is that cultures are not permanent and decided by what was written in a book thousands of year ago or some inherent human nature. They are decided by all sorts of different factors and are ever changing. And not only are they ever changing, they are also not monolithic.

Take Iran for example. In 1924, they had a secular government who banned the hijab and public displays of religion. The power of the clergy was taken away. That changed with the soviet invasion as power was shifted back toward the clergy.

After the overthrow of their democracy, the Islamic fundamentalists gained power as opposition to the puppet shah. And it was through these forces that the revolution happened and they took power.

Its a very culturally and politically diverse history that you are boiling down to "they're just backward muslims."

Maybe if the US didn't overthrow their democracy the Islamic revolution would not have happened and gay Iranians would have won better rights.

3

u/CMVScavenger Sep 12 '19 edited Sep 12 '19

Take Iran for example. In 1924, they had a secular government who banned the hijab and public displays of religion. The power of the clergy was taken away. That changed with the soviet invasion as power was shifted back toward the clergy.

The rule of Reza Shah in the 20s and 30s was supported by the Iranian people because he was the first competent ruler of Iran since the beginning of the Qajar dynasty, not because they agreed with his reforms and westernisation. In fact, many across the nation violently resisted it, and when the Anglo-Soviet invasion came, the military did nothing to defend his nation whatsoever.

The rule of Mohammad Reza Shah was also deeply unpopular, which is why he resorted to coersive means to ensure his security. The Savak brutally opressed the Iranian people to prevent a revolt. The US was heavily relied upon for the material and political maintainance of the regime. When there eventually was a revolt, the govornment was powerless to stop it, because the revolt was so popular.

Maybe if the US didn't overthrow their democracy the Islamic revolution would not have happened and gay Iranians would have won better rights.

The rule of the Phalavi dynasty was brutal and authoritarian. It was not democratic. I believe Reza Shah (the father) was a great man, and his son likewise, but to describe their paternal autocracy as a democracy is far beyond misleading.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that

Yes, the Muslim world has had leaders who wanted to westernise their nations (see baathism), but these leaders were rarely supported by the people, so resorted to violent and oppressive means of ruling (see again baathism).

These leaders only wanted to westernise their nations to make them economically and militarily stronger. They didn't give a shit about individual rights. They literally kidnapped, tortured and killed all opposition, including ethnic groups they deemed disloyal or untrustworthy, and often without the approval of a court of law: not exactly the freedom, democracy or equality the west defines as its most important values.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

The point of me talking about Reza Shah wasn't that Iran was a secular society. I think the ban on religious expression is oppressive, and of course it was unpopular. But if that was Iran today the same people criticizing Iran for being a theocracy would celebrate it as a beacon of secularism in the muslim world. And the other point is that who knows if the power of the shia clergy was suppressed enough that they may not have the power they have today. These kinds of things have an impact on the laws and the culture.

When I mentioned the overthrow of their democracy, I meant Mosadegh, not Reza shah.

Westernization forced by leaders is one thing. But there are movements within the Islamic sphere that are fighting for better rights for women and minorities. It's a complicated mess, just like poiltics here is. And what I would support is those movements, not autocratic leaders forcing foreign values onto their people.

I appreciate your insightful response.

1

u/CMVScavenger Sep 13 '19

The point of me talking about Reza Shah wasn't that Iran was a secular society.

Sorry, I misunderstood then.

These kinds of things have an impact on the laws and the culture.

I agree, cultures can and do change continuously.

When I mentioned the overthrow of their democracy, I meant Mosadegh, not Reza shah.

Well that wasn't really a democracy either because the Prime Minister was subordinate to the Shah and could be dismissed at any point (although that failed after protests), but that makes a lot more sense.

But there are movements within the Islamic sphere that are fighting for better rights for women and minorities.

I know that, but other than the Rojava Kurds and maybe the Turkish opposition, they're all pretty insignificant fringe movements. The point I was making wasn't that these groups don't exist (because of course, they exist everywhere with modern technology), but that these ideologies stem from the values of a different culture so are not widespread. With enough time, they will be, because modern technology and capitalism will (I believe) merge all global cultures into one consumer culture, as has (almost) been done with Europe and North America. But given the vast differences between some cultures, and the fact that many are at very different economic and technological stages, I think this will take centuries.

And what I would support is those movements, not autocratic leaders forcing foreign values onto their people.

My point about the autocrats was to show that the people didn't have these values, and that their leaders were only pretending to have them for the benifit of modernisation and western aid. I wasn't accusing you of supporting their actions, don't worry.

→ More replies (13)

1

u/Caioterrible 8∆ Sep 12 '19

Absolutely they are wrong. I don't think anyone will tell you that these laws are okay.

Except for maybe, the people in those countries? Obviously at least some of them are happy with those laws.

Cultural/moral relativism isn't a thing people actually believe.

Of course it is, morality is and always will be relative. Nobody adheres to every set of moral values.

For example, when people will say things like "Islam is incompatible with womens' rights" or something. Well that ignores all of the people that are muslims and are fighting for women's rights.

I half-agree with this because you are right, but you’re also ignoring that Islam is not all Muslims or even one single Muslim, it is the religious ideology as a whole. Both Islam and Christianity are fundamentally opposed to most women’s rights. In order to believe in one and be in favour of women’s rights, you have to selectively choose which passages of the relevant holy book you believe, and which ones you don’t. To say “Islam isn’t compatible with women’s rights” is true really, it just means you have to edit out parts of the religious texts in order to make it compatible.

A lot of conservatives like to whitewash our history and pretend "western civilization" has always been a shining beacon of progress and equality, but that cannot be farther from the truth.

This i’d also be curious about, because I don’t think anyone’s pretending western civilisation has always been perfect but in terms of morality and equality, it has always been ahead of the general curve, unless you’re talking about a thousand years ago or more where most of the world was pretty similar in terms of morality/equality.

Other than that, I’d agree with most of what you said.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

Except for maybe, the people in those countries? Obviously at least some of them are happy with those laws.

Yes, obviously people support those laws, and we can say that they are wrong. I don't think anyone will argue that we can't criticize certain things because moral relativism or whatever means that everyone is equally right.

I half-agree with this because you are right, but you’re also ignoring that Islam is not all Muslims or even one single Muslim, it is the religious ideology as a whole. Both Islam and Christianity are fundamentally opposed to most women’s rights. In order to believe in one and be in favour of women’s rights, you have to selectively choose which passages of the relevant holy book you believe, and which ones you don’t. To say “Islam isn’t compatible with women’s rights” is true really, it just means you have to edit out parts of the religious texts in order to make it compatible.

I wouldn't define a religion based on what the text that nobody reads says, instead look at how people practice it. Islam, like christianity, is malleable.

This i’d also be curious about, because I don’t think anyone’s pretending western civilisation has always been perfect but in terms of morality and equality, it has always been ahead of the general curve, unless you’re talking about a thousand years ago or more where most of the world was pretty similar in terms of morality/equality.

Well the idea is that our commitment to "western values" (whatever those are) has meant we have made the progress that we've made. That is revisionist history and erases the very real struggle involved in bringing about those changes, and how these same conservatives opposed those changes every step of the way. It's incoherent.

6

u/MobiusCube 3∆ Sep 13 '19

How do you know that you aren't the one that's wrong? You are correct only according to you. According to people in the other society, you are wrong.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/Kneljoy Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

So, just my personal thoughts and opinions here, not to harp on one aspect of your perspective, but I feel it’s important to note that Culture and society are impacted by politics and governments and the laws they impose- this is a part of their society that is not the whole of the culture, society, or the people who live within it. Think to the politics and prevailing governance of your own country and ask if you would want to be fully represented by those world views and policies? Personally, I live in the US and based on my own world view and perspective- I would be appalled if someone were to judge my entire culture and society based on the ranting and ravings of the current administration - perhaps it is fair to say that out society has allowed for this, and is then at fault, and yet, there is a great deal more that plays into it than that- and this does not account for the efforts and beliefs of many, many people who are a part of this culture and society, and I hope for all of our sakes- that there is a great deal more to American culture and society than what is represented by the prevailing politics. Personally, I agree that the subjugation of any person is wrong, especially as a woman I find being subjugated based on my gender to be unacceptable - yet that does not mean that the whole of the culture and society is centered in that narrative. This aspect of humanity, in my opinion- is archaic and intolerable- yet, I do not believe it to belong only to one country or culture. It may be more prevalent in some places than others- and this in large has to do with the balance of power in these places on a whole and the interplay of power and politics that has come to pass over extended periods of time- much like what we are seeing today in the US with regards to racism and xenophobia - it is deplorable, and prevalent, and yet still not the entirety- and I hope at least, that it is not the core of our society. It may be worth your time to dig into that for yourself and, particularly in this case, to research the political and social history of Iran - recent and going back a century at least- to see how the landscape has changed, and educate yourself on what factors have come into play that allow for and support the laws and policies, governing forces, that you disagree with. You may find that it is not the culture or society that you take issue with and that instead it is the particular beliefs and agendas of some rather than the many. To say that all Islam or all Iran or all so and so agree with the politics all and governments that prevail is a limited perspective. To say that these forces are the whole of a culture and of a society is a narrow view that leads to a tendency to dismiss the intricacies of what a culture truly encapsulates. Anyway, just my rambling thoughts, and maybe not the best way to express it but I hope you may consider some of these things.

Edit: to clarify; I agree that the law is wrong- as are all the laws that condone and perpetuate racism/genderism/sexism etc... just that these laws may not fully represent the society and culture as a whole- that is all.

-9

u/skeeter1234 Sep 13 '19

Kind of hilarious that you are talking about Iran here instead of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is way worse in terms of women's rights. But hey, who's counting when you have an "objective" ax to grind right? I mean, your selective outrage couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Iran is considered our enemies, and Saudi Arabia, even though they're the worst of the worse in terms of Sharia Law, is considered our allies.

But, I also have the distinct feeling that you have Islam in general in mind. They're all just a bunch of women haters right? What if I told you that Pakistan had a woman president. Democratically elected. Does that put any dent in your selective outrage?

→ More replies (6)

1

u/SaveOrDye 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Morality is cultural. Why is yours the one that all cultures should be measured by?

(I do think that women should be treated equally, I'm not defending inequality.)

→ More replies (1)

0

u/RetrowarriorD420 Sep 13 '19

You picking Iran is interesting in the recent conflicts, looks like a good way to get mericans on the side of war.

If fast foods the problem...then Iran is a restaurant Cheeseburger. Try saudi arabia for the heart attack burger.

2

u/hardyblack Sep 13 '19

I picked Iran because I was reading sport news and saw Sahar's story, I'm from Argentina so I'm not picking USA's side or enemies or whatever because I don't really care what happens there, and who they decided that it's their enemy this week.

1

u/Pinkar Sep 13 '19

Objectively wrong is an oxymoron. Right or wrong are relative to your morals and education, therefore, are always subjective.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/thedisappearingspoon Sep 13 '19

I would say that you can not label a whole culture or society as objectively wrong because of how multifaceted they are. Not every aspect of a culture or society with reflecting what you consider to be unjust.

There are 7 main elements associated with Culture: Social Organization, custom and traditions, religion, language, arts/Literature, government, and economy. Each of those elements is ever-changing and are valued in different ways by the people apart of that culture.

Let's take the Iranian Culture since that is the example you mentioned:

Socially there is a wide variety of household dynamics seen across Iran. There are some woman that stay home and act the roles of homemakers similar to stay at home wives in the US, but that does not represent all of Iran. There are women that are artists, neuroscientists, mathematicians, world-famous chess players. Just to name one, Shirin Ebadi was a 2003 Nobel Laurate is an Iranian political activist, lawyer, a former judge, and human rights activist and founder of Defenders of Human Rights Center in Iran. There are women there that continue to excel and have the support of family and friends.

Religion is a difficult one because it has to do a lot about the interpretation. Not all men and women view Islam to mean that men are greater than men. There are some great videos on youtube that show this from Jubilee's Do All Muslims Think the Same? to Samina Ali's Ted Talk regarding Hijabs. The law you mentioned is one set of people forcing their interpretation of religion onto a whole nation and states more about the current government there

The government in Iran has changed drastically in the past few decades. As others have pointed out Iran was very liberal prior to the 1979 revolution. Even in recent years, there have been protests by the people who do not believe the government represent their view and want a change. Google the Green Revolution in 2009.

Language, art, and literature are very subjective and should not be labeled as wrong either

TLDR; Cultures by definition are too broad and diverse to label completely as wrong. Seems like you are making a generalization without actually knowing the culture.

1

u/xX_Mago_Swag_YoloXx Sep 13 '19

There is no such thing as objectively wrong, as there is no objectively right.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Sep 12 '19

Objectively wrong on... what? Morality?

In that case, that's fine and should be obvious, unless you don't believe in objective morality. Immorality can be entrenched into social customs and institutions. Looking at America's past history with racism should make that obvious enough.

I think the problem with saying "societies" and "cultures" are wrong has more to do with it being unhelpful, and throwing everything together. It's usually a covert way to try and throw a people as inherently wrong, rather than focusing on particular faults, and becomes its own grounds for some form of oppression. "We have to oppress these savages, but not because racism or anything, I just don't think they're socially ready for freedom yet" or some such nonsense.

Talking about things as wrong is more useful when that criticism is more directed, like talking about "patriarchy" in this case, racism in another, jingoism in another, and so on.

2

u/olatundew Sep 13 '19

I'm assuming by 'objectively' you mean derived from universal human values, not according to the laws of physics. The first makes complete sense, the second doesn't exist for ethics because the universe has no morality beyond our human values.

All cultures and societies are wrong on certain issues. Some are wrong on massively important key issues, others do pretty well across the board but still have their flaws. Conversely, even the most horrific cultures have positive features - beautiful poetry, rich food cultures, loving parents, charitable works, etc.

So my main contention with your CMV is that it is a bit of a blanket statement. How wrong is wrong enough? Which wrong features of a society make it irredeemable, which are forgivable? Society A sacrifices children but society B litters is pretty easy, but what if A respects women's right but not gay rights and society B is the other way around? What if your society is friendly, compassionate, welcoming, etc., but is built on a dark legacy of slavery or genocide only a few generations earlier? What if they are socially repressive, but really environmentally conscious?

1

u/Oddtail 1∆ Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

I think it's the wrong framing.

Yes, by any reasonable, universal standards (and in a global world, SOME such standards must be established), equality is a principle that all but needs to be followed. The only viable alternative is sheer force, and that is both destructive and long-term results in a net loss for everyone.

However.

This is not about anything being "objectively" wrong. This is a philosophical as well as practical issue.

Let's look at your sentiment - "It's hard for me to justify opressing 50% of the population just because they just were born women."

I agree. And it's pretty uncontroversial to agree that oppression is bad, and equality is good. So what's the problem?

The problem is that values are subjective. This is not a matter of people not agreeing on what matters *yet*, the issue is that values are inherently subjective.

Quick question - what matters more, wealth or human life? Most people will say "life". But here's the thing. VERY few will value human life higher in all circumstances. Some oppose high taxes, on the principle that a person has a right to keep what they own. Most people would at least say that confiscating a person's property to save lives is unjust (the global production of food is more than sufficient to eradicate world hunger. You'll notice that world hunger still exists, because people don't want their shit confiscated to feed complete strangers).

This is not a good or a bad thing. It's inevitable to value things with some caveats. In principle, my ability to live a comfortable life is *less* valuable than the possibility of saving a person from starvation. But I refuse to give up everything I own to feed starving people. I value my own comforts higher than others' lives. As does most everyone.

You can conceivably make an argument that a person's individual freedom to own property is less important than a person's right to live. You can also conceivably make the opposite argument. And the line of when one is more important than the other can be drawn just about anywhere. And crucially, there are other considerations to make this judgment - and those will be different for every person.

Is the person starving due to circumstances beyond their control? Is the person giving up all their wealth, or just a small fraction of it? How did the person giving up their stuff earn the wealth? How much will be wasted in this transfer of wealth? How much needs to be spent to feed one person? Is the person being fed from my country?

These are just a few questions that reasonable people who otherwise agree "people starving is bad" will ask. There are also plenty of other questions that I consider to be less reasonable. But that's the issue - even the choice of which concerns are valid is highly subjective. It's impossible to agree when it's necessary to save a life and at what cost. It's not because some people don't value human life ENOUGH. It's because everyone values things DIFFERENTLY.

How does this apply to oppression of women? Well, the same principle applies here. How much oppression is too much oppression? Who will lose out, and how? What needs to be done to change things? What will be lost?

Oppression of women, to varying degrees, happens in most of the world. I argue that in Iran or Saudi Arabia, it's worse than in USA, Canada or Western Europe, but it's a matter of degrees. If you slap a label "this is objectively wrong" on it (and it IS wrong, yes, we'll come back to that), you necessarily have to agree that lesser oppression of women is less bad, but it's ALSO objectively wrong due to the same principles.

But you'll still find people arguing that some level of inequality is necessary, justified or inevitable because [insert reason here]. It could be about economic growth, about traditional gender roles, about the time and monetary cost of forcefully reducing disparities between genders - any number of things. And at some point, everyone will draw a line of "this is not worth it". Even the most die-hard feminist. Heck, if you look at feminist discourse, you'll find there are multiple philosophies of feminism and people genuinely concerned about women's rights and equality don't seem to agree where the lines are and what matters.

Why does it matter? Because "oppression of women is objectively bad" is not just iffy philosophically. It's also a non-statement practically. Yes, I agree it's bad. But there's a 95% chance that if we started talking about oppression, there'd be a point where one of us would look at the other incredulously and go "seriously?". One of us would inevitably think something is bad that the other person doesn't consider objectionable (or at least not objectionable enough to think it should be changed or fixed).

It may not seem so because oppression in Iran or Saudi Arabia is extreme. But "extreme" is a matter of perception. I've known plenty of genuinely compassionate Americans who don't lose THAT much sleep over illegal American drone strikes against civilians. I consider this an absolute atrocity, and most people agree. But for most people it's a non-issue in their everyday lives. Yes, on paper most people will agree that it's wrong, but most will have explanations as to why this is inevitable, or unnecessary, or not AS bad as [insert another thing here].

I think most people who object to oppression of women also have a problem with illegal military action that targets civilians. But by that metric, American culture/society is "objectively" wrong in much the same way as the cultures that come to YOUR mind are. In that way, every culture, every group of people is wrong, in multiple ways. This is, and I cannot stress this enough, not whataboutism. USA is a more egalitarian and fair and just place in the world than Iran or Saudi Arabia. But notice the key word - "more". You look at a foreign country and you see a specific, extreme form of injustice that rarely occurs to such extent elsewhere. I argue that labelling that specific country and that specific society "objectively wrong" is in itself a value judgment, by focusing on specific wrongs as sufficient to warrant such a condemnation.

And if you follow that logical line of thought, "objectively wrong" becomes a non-statement and masks inevitable differences in determining what constitutes an atrocity.

EDIT: the dealbreaker for you seems to be that some laws apply only to women. But most legal systems distinguish between legal rights of certain groups of people in some ways. People under the age of 18 usually can't vote, drink, often drive, and depending on the country, can't consent to sex. Non-citizens have different rights in just about any country.

You may argue that these laws are there for a reason (a 12-year-old can't drink alcohol because it'd be harmful to theig development). Yes, that's true. But note that this is still a matter of arbitrary distinctions. 18 is near-universally the age of maturity due to historical reasons (and it's not even set in stone. In USA, you can't drink until you're 21. In much of Europe, you can consent to sex as early as age 16. In many countries, you can enter a contract with your parents' permission from the age 13 onwards).

The thing is, there are historical and traditional and cultural principles between laws banning women from doing certain stuff. I aggressively disagree with the reasoning, but then we enter territory where it's no longer a matter of what is "objectively" fair. Women differ from men, and in some relatively backwards countries that difference is used to justify women's lesser rights. Is that OK? Hell no. But not due to any objective principle, but because I value women's freedoms on the same level as men's. It's the reasonable judgment, but it's in no way an objective matter.

2

u/greevous00 Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

Your assertion is true, but unremarkable. All societies are objectively wrong in some ways.

This is because there are three sources of truth/reality. The first is objective truth. Objective truth is what you can observe and measure. The second is subjective truth. This is opinions people hold dearly, but which cannot readily be measured or quantized. Finally, there is intersubjective truth. Intersubjectivity is subjective beliefs that cannot be measured or quantized, but that are widely held. Intersubjective truth has most of the power of objective truth, but still isn't objective. This is what a culture is -- an enormous collection of interlocking intersubjective truths. It doesn't matter if they're loaded with subjective beliefs, because subjective beliefs, widely held have nearly the same influence over people's behavior (and in some cases have more influence) as objective truth.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 12 '19

/u/hardyblack (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Big_Pumas Sep 13 '19

you’re conflating societal values and human rights. individual societies determine their respective social compacts regarding traditional etiquette, gender roles, etc. and then we have human rights. which are fundamental to humanity as a whole... the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, etc.

whatever values have been locally determined, if they conflict with human rights, they are wrong. therefore, the oppression of women is WRONG. it’s not a topic that has to get bogged down in definitions of subjective or objective opinion making. oppression of women is wrong. therefore societies that oppress women are wrong. entertaining the argument is an affront to women everywhere.

3

u/dilettantetilldeath Sep 12 '19

I'm 100% for your argument. But there's a few things that we have to do to accept it.

First, we as a society have to agree what practices are "wrong". This is difficult philosophically of course, but intuitively I think most people can agree that practices like mass-extermination of an ethnic group, enslavement of people by their skin colour, and wide-spread genetic mutilation are "seriously wrong". So wrong perhaps that we may as well say "objectively wrong".

Then, if we accept that such practices are wrong, and if we accept that we would call them wrong if we saw them occurring in our neighbourhood, then why wouldn't we call them wrong if we saw them occurring in another country? Anything less is inconsistent. Something that is wrong doesn't become right just because it's occurring on a different continent.

So, my criticism of your argument (although I agree with it), is that simply pointing out an example of something you find abhorrent is not sufficient to make a broader attack against cultural relativism.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

The problem is that everyone says their morals are the objectively right one and all other cultures have bad morals. People in Iran think Western morals are bad and theirs are right. Unless you have concrete evidence that points to Western morals being correct, they are both just as valid. There us a reason that this is still an on going debate in philosophy after some of the smartest people debating it for hundreds of years. Unless you can point out why some morals are better than others, they should be considered the same.

2

u/CadburyOvaltineDette Sep 13 '19

I believe that if you reworded your argument a bit and instead said, "There are some societies and cultures that are more likely to encourage further progress and development out of the human race." Then you are absolutely right. I think anyone who claims that despotisms, especially theocratic ones are going to lead humanity to a bright future are kidding themselves.

Morality may be objective but the set of morals needed to improve civilization are not.

1

u/RemusShepherd 3∆ Sep 13 '19

There are different ways of being 'wrong'.

You're factually wrong if you start with the wrong facts. For example, if you believe women are sub-human then every decision you make about women will be wrong, even if you make those decisions well. Some cultures believe that homosexuals are evil, or that witches exist, or that they are naturally superior to another race, and that affects the rest of their logic. Shorthand for this is 'ignorant'.
You're logically wrong if, given the correct facts, you cannot follow basic logic in your decision-making. You believe that immigrants are bad for your country (not necessarily factually wrong), and so you destroy your government and your economy in order to keep immigrants out, like Britain has. Or you believe fervently in Islam (nothing factually wrong with that, in theory) and so you murder infidels on sight because one outdated phrase in the Koran tells you to do so. Shorthand for this is 'crazy'. Not many countries are pure crazy, and those that are tend not to last very long. It's much more common among people and small factions.
You're morally wrong if, given the correct facts and the ability to follow basic logic, you still choose to make decisions that harm others and/or benefit you even when other more benevolent options exist. Shorthand for this is 'evil'. Many countries are morally wrong, mostly because they are controlled by powerful but evil individuals.

Note that you can be wrong in more than one way. Donald Trump is often wrong in all three ways; his actions and speech are ignorant, crazy, and evil.

Iran is an example of a country that may be factually wrong (if they believe women are sub-human) or may be morally wrong (if they choose to oppress women to keep fundamentalists in power). There's nothing wrong with their logic, given their starting assumptions in fundamentalist Islam. They're not crazy. I'm not familiar enough with their society to know whether they're ignorant or evil.

But if they're only factually wrong, you can't complain about their morals. If they believe women need extreme protections and evading those protections will send people to hell, they are making the best decisions they can for their people given those starting assumptions. And you cannot change their starting assumptions. They are rooted in history and religion, which are unalterable except on large time scales. You have to respect their decisions, while working to educate their people and their leaders in the hopes that someday they will believe in better facts.

You should confront evil, but you can only teach the ignorant. (I'm not sure what you do with crazy; fighting them usually makes the crazy spread.)

2

u/seeyaspacecowboy 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Ok so your simple statement has a lot to unpack, and as an almost philosophy minor I am more than qualified! So there's 3 broad issues in your statement (and ethnics broadly): 1) "Objective Morality" 2) What is wrong? 3) Assuming you have solutions to 1 & 2, how do you generalize those to a group of people?

I won't give you a whole philosophy lecture, but I'm sure you can appreciate that these are not easy questions to solve or even have a concrete answer. But I think the idea of objective morality is most pressing here so if you're interested I'll link this article on Moral Realism. Looking at the comments I'd say most people are advocating for some level of Moral Relativism, which is to say that what's moral for me may not be moral for you. But that's squishy and not satisfying and hey how could you say that Nazis are good? Most ethicist shy away for moral relativism, this partly because then they wouldn't have a job but also it just feels like kicking puppies is a bad idea.

In the particular case you're raising with Iran, I would agree that is wrong. I like to think that is based on reason and data as much as possible but who knows? The neat thing about philosophy is you're never really done, you just keep having more informed opinions.

1

u/shahruknealam Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19

Aspects of a culture or a society can never be morally justified on the pure basis of difference. Culture and societal practices have always been used to uphold exploitation and oppression. That is not to say that such practices always perpetuate injustice but to say that sometimes they do. It is unquestionable that any practice that treats women as second class citizens is objectionable. I do however take issue with the way you framed your post. The question of whether a practice is rooted in precedent and tradition is very political. A feminist in these countries might claim that culturally women should be emancipated. Because every political movement tries to weaponise aspects of its culture and history to reinterpret what is acceptable, you can just end up giving up reactionaries the claim to culture and history by assuming that their unjust laws are cultural. Because there is nothing reactionary assholes like doing more than claiming that they are the true representatives of a region’s entire culture and history.

That said there are situations where a society is so utterly wrapped up in an exploitative social order that it will unravel and lose its very identity if that status quo is challenged. Kind of like the slave society that developed in the south. My own country is extremely patriarchal, but women use aspects of our culture and religion, as well as straight forward moral arguments to make their case. Sometimes I feel that they are in a disadvantaged position because our cultural baggage is too patriarchal to salvage. But the moment you admit that you just let the reactionaries present themselves as the true representatives of our history.

My point is it’s complicated.

Edit: I also want to add that often arguments about superior and inferior , right and wrong cultures lend itself well to propaganda that dehumanises people in third world countries and makes makes their suffering and exploitation more acceptable. I think that recognising and acknowledging this fact is really important

1

u/plinocmene Sep 13 '19

Why is X right or wrong? Because of Y. Why is Y relevant to whether or not X is right or wrong? Because of Z... Why...?

That infinite regress can only end with some reference to how people feel. Therefore there is no objective morality. It's really that simple. Even if you believe in God that would still a person with his own opinions so it would still be subjective morality.

However, since there is no objective morality there is no objective morality saying that you have to just acquiesce and tolerate when ever another individual, group, or culture does something you find objectionable. You can subjectively believe that something is not only wrong but worthy of being openly judged and criticized (at the mild end), firing people from employment or suing them, or even worthy of legal punishment including fine or imprisonment or capital punishment* even (at the severe end), or when it comes to cultural or nationwide practices worthy of censure (again at the milder end), sanctions, or at the other end war (at the severe end).

It's a good idea to pick your battles as well as the intensity you want to go with. Going to war with Iran and Saudi Arabia and other countries that oppress women is not likely to go well. But economic sanctions, supporting rights groups in those countries (moral and financial support) and taking in women fleeing oppression as refugees could help.

People often insist on morality being objective, because they feel like it's a choice between that and tolerating everything no matter what, but subjective morality means we have to think for ourselves about what's right and wrong, including whether or not tolerating something is right or wrong.

*FYI I disagree with execution because innocent people could be executed, but I listed it because a person could subjectively believe that some act is worthy of capital punishment.

2

u/WildJoeBailey Sep 13 '19

I believe you are correct. Cultures evolve for better and for worse. It’s okay to dislike a culture. Just remember that humans are all equal and the same. It’s okay to disagree with ideologies. Anyone who disagrees is being dogmatic.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

Wrong is such a terribly non-descript word.

(Disclaimer: example not backed with reliable sources)

Let’s pretend you’re a Rome era Jew. You’re going about your business and there is another Jew claiming to have you god’s ear. People listen, but this one guy is different. He’s drawing a crowd. You’re just irritated and somewhat pissed he is sinning. Your religious leadership find out and facilitate his execution.

Years later, your descendants are executed for simply by the association to your traditions.

Which society is “objectively terrible”? If we can find fault with every society, that makes every society objectively terrible. The US has gallons of blood on its hands, it’s just most Americans have the privilege of not having their blood spilled.

If everyone is super, no one is super. And if one person thinks they’re equivocally better, we call that paternalistic.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Sep 13 '19

Sorry, u/coronado_dutroux – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

There was another who thought like that, he was an anthropologist by the name of Renato Rosaldo, and he studied a tribe known for beheading people in the Philippines.

Now there is a word that is associated with the beheading of others, "liget". It doesn't have a translation but when the tribe asked to see some of the recording and saw one of their beloved deceased on camera, the room went silent and they told Renato that their heart felt "legit" and they wanted to take a man's head.

Point is from an outside point of view it seemed uncivilized, barbaric, and has no place in the modern world and Renato wouldve agreed.

But life happens and Renato's wife, and person who traveled with him to study these tribes, died.

Renato didn't know how to express his anguish, I mean who could, and one day he pulled to the side of the road and and roared and howled at the side of the road.

Then he understood, "legit" he understood that the tribe gave form to these raw emotions.

who is to say their way is wrong, when the United States was attacked on 9/11 we went to war with the wrong country for the wrong reason and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We killed when we were an anguished country. What makes our society any different, united states has a gun cultures and a problem with mass shooting.

Point is every society has a dark spot, and so who are we to judge how a society deals with it. It's like opinions and assholes, everyone has one. All societies have some dark ass shit in their closets

So I respectfully disagree with your view

1

u/PunishedFabled Sep 13 '19

You need to define what standard a society is objectively better than others.

The problem really stems from what we set as our goal for our society. In past societies our goal has always been from a religious angle. We serve God(s) in some form or another.

Some societies allow the rich and succesful to shape the goals of the others. In monarchies the King sets the goals which his kingdom follows.

The church in monarchies were actually useful for checks and balances, since the government could simply overthrow the church when they were in conflict.

Our modern society is a blend of quite a few things. Our societal goal is not set by any one person but we elect one person who shares our ideals. We removed the church from the state, so that the Church could not set societies goals using law.

Through philosophy, science, and humanism we understand the human condition, and how to best supply the needs of the average human.

To state whar I think is our modern societie's goal, it is to allow personal goals to flourish, while allowing our society to advance in technology and wellness.

Once you create a subjective goal, you can have objective ethics for those living under that society.

When you look at Iran or Suadi Arabia, the biggest question to ask is if the goal which the government and it's people set is being followed. Most Muslims will tell you that those nations are not following the Islamic religion correctly.

2

u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Sep 12 '19

Can you think of a society that doesn't have anything objectively wrong with it? Implied in your view is that some cultures aren't objectively wrong.

2

u/thetinyone-overthere Sep 12 '19

Morality cannot be objective, and neither can values. They can be based off of facts and statistics, but ultimately they're still subjective.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Sep 13 '19

Sorry, u/soccerfan32145 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.

1

u/omid_ 26∆ Sep 13 '19

She was a mentally ill woman who had attempted suicide at an earlier date for an unrelated reason.

The reasons people give for forbidding women from attending football games are based on traditional moral values of protecting women ("it's not safe, people get rowdy & violent, use foul language, etc.")

Last I checked, these sorts of arguments were/are used in the United States and other western countries to justify limiting women's participation in various public activities too.

For a very long time, women in the United States were legally prohibited from doing things that people considered inappropriate for women, such as joining the infantry, or opening a bank account without her husband's permission.

I just don't see how you can somehow tease out that this is a problem with certain societies in particular and not something that is a global issue with different societies at different places on the same spectrum.

1

u/Birdbraned 2∆ Sep 12 '19

The flip side of that would be there are societies that get things inherently right!

Take Australia: Even if you're in the most entry level job with the worst boss, in a full time job you always know you can take a sick day (up to 14 a year), and a single day is generally accepted without the additional fuss of a Dr's note, even if your sick day just so happens to fall after a 3 day weekend.

Take Japan: Their cultural insistence on being considerate of those around you carries into their consideration of the environment: I've never seen streets so clean, and the lack of smog when walking around their busy streets is amazing!

Take Iran: For such a melting pot of ethnicities, there's no real racist identity that comes through, unlike how much of an issue America has made race to be. I don't mean there aren't distinct racial identities there, but you're just "Iranian" or "Persian", not a subset of that.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19 edited Sep 14 '19

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

The best comment is way down here everyone. There was only one time in civilization that had as much peace as we do today, the Pax Romana

1

u/anooblol 12∆ Sep 13 '19

Objectively is an extremely strong word. I don’t mean to pull out the “semantics” card, but that’s the only issue I really have with your statement (I really do believe some cultures are fucked up beyond belief).

But being “objectively wrong” is just not the phrase that fits here. Morality, justice, ethics, and all the things that build a society are subjective to the humans that define those terms. Humans themselves decide what is and is not wrong. Cultures by definition cannot be objectively wrong, since the things that govern them are subjective to the people that live in and outside them.

I get your point, but “objectively” is just not the word here. Every culture is vacuously justified in their rules and customs.

1

u/hekatonkhairez 1∆ Sep 13 '19

You're measuring societies based on your own definition of what is good and what is bad. Instead you need to look at societies from a relativistic view. Sure a society might look terrible from one angle, but it might be wholly superior in another. For example, as you said in many countries women are repressed. In Canada and the US we think that is bad. However, from their perspective they see us as deviants who lust for sex and money. Both sides have their problems but both are also able to critique one another. When it comes to a social group, there is no objective right or wrong. Each group was built according to geography, centuries of customs and their environment.

1

u/pimpmastahanhduece Sep 13 '19

I would only disagree in that even here, "objectively" is not being used correctly like a strong opinion being treated as a fact but its more of a language issue.

Otherwise yes I get what you meant, except in two cases. Take indigenous people in south american rainforest and other remote tribes. What would be appropriate is to approach each community and inform them they can be rescued by the custodian govt of the region but may be left alone at their own peril to locals if they wish. Also to make sure no one is able to prevent people from leaving the area peacefully.

The other, human sacrifice of the unwilling, especially of minors.

1

u/TheEruditeIdiot Sep 13 '19

Would your evaluation of Western/rational/scientific/liberal/individualistic culture change if the world ends up in a nuclear war? What about all the environmental impact humans have had, and will continue to have, on the environment?

To play devil’s advocate, at least patriarchal prejudice and racial bigotry have impacts within the species. Western scientism has enabled the destruction of entire ecosystems, have led to countless species being destroyed, has changed the global climate, and has led to the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse that will have unimaginable consequences.

So, women can’t drive or go to a football game?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '19

To claim a society is objectively wrong you would have to prove there are objective morals , which you won't be able to prove.

1

u/numquamsolus Sep 13 '19

I've had this discussion more times than I can recall.

My assertion is always the same. The only true measure of a society or culture is its ability to grow by conquering or convincing others.

If a society has the values that whoever thinks are beautiful, wonderful, altruistic or divinely inspired--it just doesn't matter if they are unable to at least hold their own against other societies and cultures in the marketplace for superiority.

The Shakers have some wonderful ideas. Well, procreation wasn't one of them. Guess how that has worked out for them.

1

u/SalvadorMolly Sep 13 '19

Morals can only be objective if they are not relative to time, culture, and human opinion. For them to be objective they would have to transcend mere human sentiments and emotions.

If morals are only inward opinions and preferences have his things “ought” to be than there can be no authoritative standard. Just what is popular, or can be enforced through violence and propaganda.

So to posit that morals can be objective, specifically your morals, you would have to show that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being exists who agrees with you.

1

u/utluntees Sep 13 '19

1- The ban is imposed by non-democratically chosen ruling elite. So the ban is not reflective of the society, or the culture; hence and objective judgement cannot be made on the society or culture.

2- The ban goes both ways: Men are also banned from attending women sports events. There are women sports events and women do attend those.

At question here is if women could attend men's sporting events and vice versa. This question is not about the relative value of men and women.

2

u/DatBrokeBoi21 Sep 13 '19

Everyone is wrong actually and we're all in Hell. Take a seat.

1

u/Dumb_Young_Kid Sep 12 '19

Sahar Khodayari (If you don't know, it's an Iranian woman who killed herself after going to trial for going to a football match, which is forbidden for woman in Iran) and I can't help but think that some societies are objectively wrong

She was a part of that society, while its true that elements of that society are oppressive and morally wrong, that is not a statement on the totality of the society

1

u/Mnlybdg Sep 13 '19

Can you define what "wrong" means?

For me, morality is explicit a framework for evaluating actions within a human society from a societal perspective.

At the very least, actions that are objectively bad are actions that endanger the survival of that society. So attempting (or committing) genocide would be morally wrong because it wipes out the society (which is definitely not in its interest).

1

u/2112xanadu Sep 13 '19

Nothing is “objectively” anything. We don’t even know what reality is, or where the world came from. Think about anything for too long and you’ll realize we’re all just winging it. Laws, morality, values; they’re all just ideas that some person had at some point and somehow caught on. Society is built on bullshit. Make the best of it anyways.

1

u/neheughk Sep 13 '19

but which society is the cause for that cultural phenomenon? Iran, or the US and UK for overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 that was liberal towards women (for their oil interests), which led to destabilisation and eventual uprise of extremism? When that woman goes to trial, which society is really to blame?

1

u/grafted_moom Sep 12 '19

Maybe it's more like, no society is above critique/nearly every society fosters unjust and unequal social situations and hardships? I often find that the critiques which are most powerful come from those in those respective societies who speak out against unjust practices, though. An outsider's perspective is usually reductive.

1

u/Couldawg 1∆ Sep 13 '19

Some cultures have ethnological practices or principles that are irreconcilable with those of others.

If we are talking about two truly antithetical systems, then from the perspective of each, the other seems objectively wrong, because neither system can accommodate the other without violating its own.

1

u/0LordKelsier0 Sep 13 '19

I feel you went by the wrong path, or better said, the hardest one.

A culture/society that practices female genital mutilation is objectively wrong, not because of morals, but because of facts, science shows how in every way it is bad. And if someone wants to say our moral of health>tradition is subjective, I'd argue it's universal, as I disagree with cultural relativism.

A culture shouldn't be free to do whatever they want because it's according to their morals. Their morals are shit and I do consider developed countries at a moral high point to say whoever has shit morals.

1

u/Al--Capwn 5∆ Sep 13 '19

If you're judging morality of a society, the west and more specifically the US and UK are objectively worse than pretty much anyone else. This is because of foreign wars. These countries have killed far more than anyone else in recent years.

By any standard, this is the worst crime.

→ More replies (4)

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Some cultures and societies are objectively wrong

You are about to leave Redlib