DCL: Cultural Relativism

Thanks to Pugna Verborum for this debate. I. Topic AnalysisIt is important to establish the burdens in this debate. Pro must assert not merely that cultural relativism is plausibly correct, but that it is likely correct. To do this, Pro must affirm all four points of the R1 definition. As for myself, I must show that cultural relativism is not likely correct. My burden can be met in several ways, including nullifying Pro's reasons for it being likely, arguing for subjectivism, or arguing for objective morality, but also by showing that all cultures share a few basic moral principles, whether or not those principles are objectively correct. Any one (or all) of these can sufficiently negate. II. EskimosWho knew we'd be talking about fur-wearing, seal-hunting, ice-loving Eskimos? I did, of course. They have important lessons to teach us about morality and it's cross-cultural nature. These lessons start with a simple fact: when the elderly of some Eskimo groups become too enfeebled to be fairly self-sufficient, they are cast out into the harsh environment and allowed to die. [1]First examination of this practice may arouse a sense in disgust from those of us raised in Western cultures; obviously Eskimos lack appropriate respect for life, right? Not really. In an environment as harsh as the tundras of Alaska or the pack-ice of northern Nunavut, resources, particularly in winter, are scarce. To sustain the lives of the healthy, including infants, food must be distributed as wisely as possible; there is simply not enough nourishment to sustain the entire population. By evicting the aged, the Eskimos can maximize the chances of survival for those with better life prospects (i. e. those likely to live longer and healthier lives). It makes sense, even if it bothers you. But now, the million-dollar question: is Eskimo morality fundamentally different from Western morality? In other words, are there no shared precepts, truths, beliefs, or standards that unite those two moral codes? The Eskimos are using a very tried-and-true form of moral reasoning in their justification of senicide: consequentialism. This moral theory was pioneered by Western philosophers like Bentham, Mills, and Singer, and has become a core tenet of Western moral principles. When Americans, for instance, support the use of drone strikes despite reasonable concerns about civilian causalities, we do so for consequentialist reasons; we figure that the drone strikes save more innocents than they kill, inasmuch as they eliminate dangerous militants. [2]The difference between Eskimos and Americans, then, is not a lack of shared precepts, truths, beliefs, or standards, but rather, it is a lack of shared situations. A set of moral rules that did not share precepts with our own, whatever they be, would not only be different from our own, but utterly incomprehensible to us. It would be as if the very axioms of moral logic had been rewritten. However different the Eskimo moral code is, there are certain basic ideas that allow us to appreciate, understand, and evaluate Eskimo morality. We share certain basic dicta, such as "human life is valuable," and "the greatest good for the greatest number," and so forth. So, while there may be layers of nuance and difference in the application of these principles, the basic value is unchanged, and is a starting point for understanding. If I asked any human to explain their moral beliefs, I could understand them only because we have a common framework for that discussion in the form of those axioms. Thus, all human cultures share basic precepts, values, truths, and ideas, because all cultures can be comprehended by other humans on a moral level. No human culture is utterly beyond the ken of any person. III. Humanity's Moral Building Blocks (and Seals)It may do us some good to examine why exactly it is all cultures can be comprehended by all others. This will serve to prove why it is likely--or in some cases, necessary--that cultures share various moral precepts. A. Drive to SurviveFirst, of course, there is our survival instinct. Humans are programmed to survive and have evolved rules, norms, and customs to best suit their drive to survive, procreate, and rear young, much like all animals on this Earth. The Eskimos and the seals they hunt are, in this sense, not so different from each other. Seals, like the Eskimos, have a limited supply of food in the harsh winter months. Mothers cannot afford to suckle more than one infant as a result, and so will reject orphan pups who attempt to to steal their milk. [3, 4] Leaving these orphans to starve may appear to be a brutal practice (one may even wonder how something so adorable could be so cold), but, like the Eskimos' senicide, it ensures that scarce resources are conserved for those with the best chance of continued survival. This drive to survive naturally produces similar moral beliefs among all cultures, because there are certain winning formulas that increase the chances of survival. Both the Eskimos and the seals have created rules and norms to designed to increase the probability of survival. Our innate survival instinct has given birth to such cultural mores as prohibitions on murder. No culture could survive if people could kill others at will, with no social sanctions against the action. In such a "culture" no one would feel safe, and anyone who wanted to live would either be forced to live by themselves (a much harder task than living with a group) or to band together with people they trusted not to kill them. But this act of joining with others who would not kill you is significant: it is forming a smaller culture that does have norms against murder. Therefore, by necessity, all cultures have contrived moral prohibitions on wanton murder; there may be certain loopholes in these rules, but the basic principle against murder is shared universally by all cultures. [1]James Rachels summarizes this logic brilliantly: "There is a general theoretical point here, namely, that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are two examples. And in fact, we do find these rules in force in all viable cultures. Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this disagreement exists against a background of agreement on the larger issues. Therefore, it is a mistake to overestimate the amount of difference between cultures. Not every moral rule can vary from society to society. " [1]B. Common BiologyThe human has hardwired into him certain capacities that direct his moral thinking. Mirror neurons, for example, are strongly linked to feelings of empathy in the human experience. [5, 6, 7] They allow us to simulate in ourselves how others are feeling. So, if you saw someone get cut by a knife, you could imagine the pain, and may even feel that pain with the person, hence the name "mirror" neurons. [8] Human capacity to feel less complex emotions like pain and even more complex emotions like love also shape how we create moral rules. Pain is a signifier born of thousands of years of evolution which is programmed to turn us away from specific courses of action, and our desire to avoid it has led to a system of rules dedicated to minimizing it. These common emotions and sensations are bound to give rise to common impulses and desires, which in turn give rise to common rules and principles. For instance, the realities that pain is bad, that human's can feel each other's pain, have fashioned norms against causing needless suffering within all cultures. Again, while their may be variations in the application of or loopholes in this principle, the principle itself is universal. C. Shared ExperienceThese biological commonalities are also reinforced by experiential learning, that tired and worn-out mantra of high schools and colleges all over the nation. I have been lied to before, for instance, and my feelings from these past experiences gives me an idea of what it is like to be lied to. When I see others lied to, I can use my experiences to give me a sense of what that means for them, so that I can empathize (three cheers for mirror neurons) with them better. The fact that most humans have similar collections of experiences (all have been lied to, all have been hurt, etc. ) give rise to similar rules that stem from that experiential wisdom and (yes) learning. IV. ConclusionIn my first contention, I established that what may appear to be vastly different moral rules/norms may in fact be the rooted in the exact same moral rule or principle. Senicide for the Eskimo's is justified by consequentialism, and stems from the reality that resources for them are scarce. In a culture with a resource glut, it is consequentialist to help the elderly continue to live. Different practical results are achieved, but the moral principle is shared. Cultural relativism, therefore, is only a superficial and shortsighted analysis of morality. It sees the surface difference between the Eskimos and ourselves and stops there, without looking deeper. A closer inspection unearths the commonalities which underpin both moral systems. I also showed how our mere ability to understand different moral systems is evidence of shared moral precepts. In my second contention, I established that common instincts, biology, ways of thinking, and experiences lead, inevitably, to common moral systems. Humans are too alike to produce totally dis-analogous moral systems. Thus, element two of the definition of cultural relativism is negated. V. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . http://tinyurl.com...6 - . http://tinyurl.com...7 - . http://tinyurl.com...8 - . http://tinyurl.com...Thanks!