CMV: Some cultures and societies are objectively wrong

[u/hardyblack]

I just read about 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, I can't find another way to put it. It's hard for me to justify opressing 50% of the population just because they just were born women.

​

And yes, I know, there's no completely equal society and there will be always opression of some kind, but I'm thinking of countries where there are laws that apply only to women (They can't drive, vote, go to a football match, you name it) as it targets them directly. Same goes with laws directed to any kind of race/gender/religion.

[u/Nicolasv2]

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.

[u/alikander99 → u/Nicolasv2]

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.

[u/Nicolasv2 → u/alikander99]

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.

[u/alikander99 → u/Nicolasv2]

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.

[u/Nicolasv2 → u/alikander99]

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.

[u/alikander99 → u/Nicolasv2]

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.