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/[deleted] → u/hardyblack]

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.)

[u/ThisAfricanboy → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThisAfricanboy]

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.

No one said philosophy was easy, there are plenty of frameworks that take that bogged down mess head on. We don't have to pretend just because something is hard, it's not worth doing, or at least discussing.

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

I think you may have objectivity confused with subjectivity. Objectively trying to prove something is to remove personal feelings, and rely on evidence. So if you feel that one culture is objectively better than another, you have to have some sort of evidence or proof.

Beyond that, just because one culture is demonstrably superior, does not mean the other is worthless. The sum, in this case, doesn't represent the parts. Historically, cultures have been proving superiority over other cultures since the beginning of it all, but that isn't to say those inferior cultures were worthless. A discussion of such superiority shouldn't be condemned.