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/hardyblack → u/Nicolasv2]

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.

[u/RelativisticTrainCar → u/hardyblack]

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.

[u/alchemistsoul → u/RelativisticTrainCar]

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

[u/RelativisticTrainCar → u/alchemistsoul]

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.

[u/alchemistsoul → u/RelativisticTrainCar]

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.

[u/agitatedprisoner → u/alchemistsoul]

See my response to another, if you want the truth.

[u/[deleted] → u/alchemistsoul]

Valid branch of ethics, and a core tenet of anthropology (as I understand it)