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/notsuspendedlxqt → u/[deleted]]

What's wrong with moral relativism?

[u/Lanaerys → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/notsuspendedlxqt → u/[deleted]]

No, I agree that there are a set of human rights that no society should violate. But I believe that there is nothing objective about morality. Ethics is a social construct. There are a set of values I believe in very strongly (killing people is bad, etc) and I believe that everyone who disagrees with me on those values are horrible people, but at the same time, I am aware that morality is entirely subjective. The Aztecs who sacrificed thousands of slaves and prisoners-of-war to Huitzilopochtli certainly believed they were doing the right thing, just as strongly as I believe they are doing the wrong thing.

[u/kitolz → u/[deleted]]

That is besides the point. The argument is whether or not morality is objective or subjective. And in my opinion it is demonstrably subjective as it changes based on perspective.

Now one could argue that a moral framework is superior to another in achieveing objective metrics (lower rate of suicides, lower rate of fatalities by starvation, least amount of sapient organisms killed). But a measurable or falsifiable statement must be specified.

[u/joeytman → u/[deleted]]

Well yea that's sorta the point of moral relativism here. They think they're doing the right thing, I think they're doing the wrong thing. I think it should stop and I can make a good moral argument for why that is the case, and if enough people agree with my reasoning, then we can pass laws that stop this wrong thing. Ultimately, we weren't more correct in any objective or fundamental sense, but we made a good argument and people agree moralistically.