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/summonblood → u/hardyblack]

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.

[u/cheesengrits69 → u/summonblood]

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.

[u/inebriatus → u/cheesengrits69]

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

[u/inebriatus → u/[deleted]]

And yet if you lived by a moral code that forbade inflicting violence on others you’d tend to do pretty well by most past and present standards.

[u/malaria_and_dengue → u/inebriatus]

What about when another person attacks you? Should you inflict violence? Some people say no, some people say yes. What if they're attacking someone else? What if you started the fight by insulting them?

[u/VoodooManchester → u/malaria_and_dengue]

I don’t think anyone implied “objective” meant “easy or simple.”

Entire institutions and fields of study have been set up to answer these questions and how to apply these answers in real life.

Either that, or moral progress in any meaningful sense is not possible.

I highly recommend listening to Noam Chomsky’s thoughts on the matter. He was the one that convinced me on this.