Relativism: Is it wrong to judge other cultures? | A-Z of ISMs Episode 18 - BBC Ideas

Is it wrong to judge other cultures? Or are some things just plain wrong? Philosopher Nigel Warburton unpacks the philosophy and ethics of relativism.

This video was made by Somethin' Else.
-----------------
Do you have a curious mind? You’re in the right place.

Our aim on BBC Ideas is to feed your curiosity, to open your mind to new perspectives, and to leave you that little bit smarter.



#Relativism #Philosophy

[larschristianalm]

No, it's not wrong to judge other cultures.

We can judge other cultures positively, negatively or be indifferent. Some cultures have harmful practices which need to be criticized and opposed. Some things really are just plain wrong because they are harmful and conflict with well-being and happiness. It's a really troubling and problematic mindset to not judge and not oppose harmful cultural practices. The harmful aspects of Nazi culture must be judged and opposed just as harshly as harmful practices of Islamic culture, bull-fighting, Christian culture or anything else.

[MattNorth]

If moral relativism is true, a culture that has a tradition of violently subjugating other cultures is no worse than a culture that prefers peaceful coexistence. Therefore, if cultural relativism is true, ethnocentrism isn't really wrong.

[fromeveryting]

Moral relativism is a truly dangerous attitude that can allow the most unspeakable evils we can imagine. To "not intervene" is to allow.

[fficerpimp]

I hope the irony of the very title of the video is not lost on anyone

[Redskies]

Cultural relativism is rubbish. Outcomes exist. Suffering exists. It shouldn't be controversial to look down on behaviors that lead to increased suffering. Get your shit together and do the right thing people.

[cameronvinson]

everyhting in life ins`t black or white but everything isn`t grey either.

[disacane]

a full set of bs, that's the relativism

[zanbarlee]

actually, that is wrong. It is most definitely okay for a subjectivist or relativist to criticize other moralities. All subjectivism claims, on a base level, is that there are people out there that will look at one of your moral claims and will believe it to be false just as strongly as you believe it to be true. This is a simple definition. Anything beyond this, such as whether or not you ought to hold your criticisms of other moralities requires a moral claim beyond that of the definition.


So, as an example of why relativists can criticize other views, let us look at the most subjective thing in existence: desires. Whether or not someone likes a certain videogame, for example, relies completely on their own individual thoughts. Despite the subjectiveness of someone's favorite videogame, however, there are still measurable factors that tend to make a game seem good to a human that you can use to argue that your like of a videogame over another is not only warranted but reasonable. Things such as graphics, overall progression, continuity, and controls can lay solid groundwork for a decision that is ultimately subjective. We do this all of the time: arguing whether Fortnite is a shitty game, whether modern warfare is better than battlefield, whether blackops 2 is better or worse than black ops 1, whether portal 1 is worse than portal 2. In lots of cases there is enough of a solid groundwork for both sides of the argument to reasonably like one game over another. Even if we disagree with them, we can realize that they are only wrong to enjoy the game that you don't when it comes to your own perspective. However, sometimes there are games that are so horrible or good and have such a solid groundwork for one side over the other that, even though there are a small percentage of people who do fall on the opposite side, disagreeing with the vast amount of people who have such good reasons for falling on the side they did seems insane and unreasonable. Of course, they are just as correct to like the horrible game as you are to dislike it, at least in their eyes. But you bet your ass everyone will be criticizing them for it and the person that likes it will have no arguments to use that won't make them look silly at best or stupid at worst.


At least when it comes to their subjectiveness, morality is much like your favorite videogame. Even though your morality comes vastly from your own belief system, wherever it came from, and other people will disagree with you, there are still measurable factors that tend to make a moral choice seem good to a human that you can use to argue that your agreement with the moral choice in question is not only warranted but reasonable. Things such as the overall harm caused by a moral choice, the amount of pleasure a choice can bring, how many people are lost or saved by a moral choice can all lay a solid groundwork for a decision that is ultimately subjective. We do this all of the time: arguing whether abortion is morally permissible, whether doctor-assisted suicide is morally permissible, whether lying is the moral choice in specific circumstances. In lots of cases, there is enough of a solid groundwork for both sides of the argument to reasonably choose one side of a moral debate over the other. However, sometimes there are moral choices that are so widely considered to be good or bad and have such a solid groundwork for one side over the other that, even though there are a small percentage of people who do fall on the opposite side, disagreeing with the vast amount of people who have such good reasons for falling on the side that they did seems insane and unreasonable. Of course, in their eyes, they are just as correct to like the horrible moral value as you are to dislike it. But you bet your ass everyone will criticize them for it and the person that likes it will have no arguments to use that won't make them seem stupid at best or evil at worst.


I hope that analogy makes it a bit easier to understand. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean a legitimate debate can't be had about it. Every opinion needs to be backed up. Everyone knows this from the argumentative essays we wrote in grade school. It may be true that a moral claim can look both positive and negative depending on the onlooker. But why in hell would that ever suggest that we can't talk about it? If we can argue about something subjective like whether or not Fortnite is shit, then we can argue about something subjective like whether or not Nazi Germany was right to enslave and kill innocent people.

[ignantxxxninja]

The statement: "truth cannot be absolutely true" is a contradiction in itself. If that statement is true, then that statement is false lol.

[girlss]

In the case of Nazi Germany, discussion about whether or not the events that occurred were justified can happen and it does in fact happen in many educational settings. However, the need to debate the "why's and why nots" regarding a morally controversial subject decreases as society makes clear-cut morals a social norm/socially acceptable. When things like the enslavement of marginalized communities, rape and discrimination at any level - become what's socially UNACCEPTABLE is when discussion on the matter turns almost nonexistent. Unfortunately, however, that isn't really the case right now. From what I notice, especially among the younger male audiences - there is a constant appetite for discussions on these very sensitive matters. As if it pleases them to be the odd one out to see things from the devil's perspective. The term "devil's advocate" exists for a reason, and there are many of them in today's society to bring up the subjectivity of say Nazi Germany's rule. While discussion and the importance of looking at things from the other side are indeed important, we collectively as a society should be able to agree that the act of harming another person both physically or mentally is wrong. If that person's quality of life, health or mental well-being is being affected by yourself, it is then the individuals that reside in a 'moral' society's DUTY to discipline and set examples of what is clearly wrong in order to ensure peace and harmony of human life in today's globalized world.

[LeannHadeed]

I understand what cultural relativism strives to accomplish. I may not fully agree with the concept of cultural relativism. However, I see some benefit in looking at culture neutrally when learning more about how they may do certain things. For example, trying food that may be strange to your culture but not others. I see limitations to this concept. Some things are inherently morally wrong. Things like Jus Cogen- compelling laws involving the most heinous crimes are universally agreed upon as ethically wrong. Killing, torture, genocide, and cannibalism have no way of being morally right. You mentioned nazis and how at that time in their society, treating certain people as though they were less than human was normalized through conditioning. To be more specific, children who grew up in nazis Germany would believe that treating individuals like less than human was normal. But when they leave that environment and see the culture they have been living in from another perspective, they will realize that what is going on is morally wrong.

[franzferdinand]

With relativism, anything can be justified and protected.

[JohnDoe-rsgh]

There are cultures that are superior to others and some that are inferior to others. This is a fact. Culturalism is good for the world, it ensures that the most advance and knowledgeable survive. This is proven with the vast study work of the Sentinelese people and culture of North Sentinel Island. A savage people who reject the outside world that posses a greater question to civilization. Should a group of people who have no concept of human rights or beliefs be left to themselves or is it the duty of society to bring them into the light. Its like the "tree falls in the woods" analogy. If a group of people are killing raping murdering anyone who sets foot on their island and have no concept of right and wrong. Is it civilizations duty to bring them into the light, As colonization has done for 1000s of years across many cultures? They dont want to be educated and brought into society, should they be forced to be educated?

[JohnBilling-fi]

There was internal criticism of these practices in Germany, thus it was not a universally accepted practice in the culture. Taking an extreme example like this does not disprove the validity of moral relativism with regard to victimless practices.

[cfalcon]

If there is no absolute truth, then that statement itself is not true absolutely.

[ggates]

Evil appears to be whenever unnecessary suffering is inflicted upon a sentient being.

[AntonyoKnight]

This is also true for Israel and Palestine situation.

[sue]

Truth does not change no matter how people see things.. our views of the world is relative

[TeaParty]

Note the evasion of reality for social subjectivism and the evasion of definitions
.Morality is a rational, reality-focused guide to life, not whim..

[kadran]

Western culture is superior to all others.
This is true depending on how we contextualise and define 'western culture' and 'superior'. Western culture is superior in mass development of industrialised technology and global trade, in exploitation of both human and natural resources, in raising the standards of living, in wholesale destruction of the natural environment, and in creating the next mass extinction event. Indigenous cultures are superior in terms of sustainability, community engagement, spiritual awareness and cooperation. How we decide which is better depends upon how we wish to apply the conclusion. This is relative.

Corporate contributions distort democratic processes.
How can this be a debatable truth? Where a debate is held to determine the truth, this process itself removes the focus of the group from truth to argumentative skills. Given a definition of 'democracy' as the rule of educated citizens in choosing the highest social benefit, financial incentives furnishing politicians with further privileges warps democracy into a plutocracy. How can this statement's truth be questioned? This is not relative.

Cigarettes cause cancer.
How can this truth be questioned? Peer-reviewed evidence has been clear for decades. This is not relative truth at all.

God hates gays.
How can this be framed as truth? There is evidence that many people believe this idea, but there is zero evidence of either deities or of any particular divine hatred experienced by homosexuals or males who lack overt aggressive tendencies. The only evidence available is that some of the people who believe this idea act on this idea and commit premeditated violence. This is truth defined by overt emotionality.

Truth can be encompassed by clear definitions, truth can be identified through evidence, truth can be obfuscated with irrelevant contextualisation, and bigots create the evidence of their bigotry. I am not satisfied with this video presentation. This is true based on the arguments I have made: is this relative truth? Moral relativism could be such a great discussion topic but seems to be used to deliberately confuse and distort perceptions.