From: yoichi@carson.u.washington.edu (Yoichi Ii)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Brainwashied
Date: 2 Jan 1993 11:04:26 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <34660@twics.co.jp> dcroz@twics.co.jp writes:
>=}>It took Alan Bloom, a professor of political philosophy, an entire book to 
>=}>deal with that subject.  But deal with it he did.  
> 
>=}So what did he have to say? Summarize in 200 words or less :-) 
> 
>[...] Aside from that, he answered the question, "How can you say that one
>culture is 'better' than another?"

Well, so what did he say? :-)

>=}IMHO there's at least 3 problems with this. First is the definition of human
>=}nature.  Even if we agree that human nature should dictate culture, the
>=}argument will merely be shifted from culture to that on nature of human
>=}being. 
> 
>     This is a problem that would arise only if we did so agree, and not an
>argument against the proposition itself.  [...]

It wasn't meant to be.  I meant "problem" in a sense that things that need
to be solved before one can start rank order cultures.

>     Besides, I don't think a shift from "everything is relative" to "the good
>is sometimes discoverable" should be called "mere."  It gets us away from the
>radical nihilism currently in vogue and revalidates the attempt to find the
>good.

I think you misunderstood me.  I did not say "everything is relative".
Someone else did. As I wrote below, I do not exclude the possibility of
the "good".

>=}Second, how do you define "work better"?  Is being efficient and competitive
>=}the only factor?  Or are there some factors (eg individual rights) which 
>=}cannot be transgressed even at a cost of greater "good" for the society?  
> 
>     Well, at least we're talking about the definition of "better," instead of
>throwing up our hands and declaring that no such thing can exist.

I didn't say this either.  Either someonelse posted it or you're recreating
conversation from some other time.

>[...]
>=}Third, individual rights, for example, might be something that cannot be 
>=}addressed from just human nature.
> 
>     Then again, perhaps they can.  Or, at least, perhaps human nature should
>be a factor in these considerations.  It might well be that human nature plays
>a limiting role in some circumstances.  

Are you conceding that there might be factors other than human nature that
dictate culture?

>     Should we add to the UN charter on human rights a codicil proclaiming the
>right of men to get abortions when they get pregnant?

? Sorry, I don't get this one.

>=}At present, whatever criteria people might have to rate cultures, I think,
>=}is mosty biased toward their own.
> 
>     It would seem that you have a rather low opinion of other people's
>intellectual capacities.

I include myself in "people".  But, yes, I think we all have tendency
to believe that one's own culture is somehow "more natural" or "better".

[...]
>=}According to your "rule" above, what works best in each society is the best.
> 
>     No, according to "my" rule above, what works best for the largest numbers
>of human beings (with tolerance for exceptions) is the best.
> 
>=}This would mean what's best for hunter-gatherer is different from, say, an
>=}industrialized society.
> 
>     There is some validity to this argument, in that there are cultural
>artifacts that work better in one or the other of these societies.  There
>wouldn't have been a lot of purpose in teaching Dickins' London street urchins
>the ins and outs of tracking mastodon.  However, that's not what I'm arguing.
> 
>     I am arguing that there are some things, such as a prohibition on violent
>crime and antibiotics, that make like better for human beings in an absolute
>sense.  Humans living in a society that has these things have a better chance
>of surviving and being "happy," and also of having the leisure to achieve
>further advances.  Not long ago, *most* of humanity spent *most* of their time
>getting food.  In the U.S., three percent of the population now feed everyone.

There was an anthropologist who did a study on comparison of free time between
a typical hunter-gatherer vs a typical office worker in a modern society.  At
least according to this guy (or gal, I don't know), the former had more free
time. I don't know about other countries, but I could easily believe the
result if the office worker were in Japan or US :-)

>     Do you really think you'd like to trade everything you have for a slot in
>a pleistocene tribe with no medicine and a 30-year life expectancy?
> 
>=}So which culture is better?
> 
>     If you are asking me to distinguish between historical hunter-gatherer
>societies and the industrialized societies of the modern world, clearly, the
>industrialized societies are "better" in every sense of the word.

The question was not about your particular preference, but rather about
an existence of an answer which would be true for everyone.  I've heard
of many office workers in Japan, who would love to live off a farm, back-to-
nature style.  Most cannot, of course due to limit land area, etc (In US, 
it's easier).  Would you still say that industrialized societies are better
for EVERYONE in EVERY sense of the word?

>=}The point, I believe, was how can one culture judge another?  No one was
>=}questioning the right for one to choose ones own culture.
> 
>     A question of sovereignty, eh?  But our definitions of "sovereign rights"
>have been changing.  It used to be that every man had sovereignty over his
>wife, children, and slaves.  These "rights" have been assumed by the state. It
>used to be that every state had absolute sovereignty within its borders, but
>now an argument is emerging to the effect that atrocities or crimes against
>humanity give other states standing to interfere.
> 
>    Looks to me like a long-term trend taking us from small tribes to a global
>society.  You cannot, in a nation-state, hide slavery or child prostitution
>behind regional sovereignty. South Africa has discovered that it could not hid
>apartheid behind its national borders. Did you disapprove of the international
>pressure to make them change?  Clearly this joint effort implies a consensus
>that a culture can be worse than others.

No it is not a clear indication that one is better than the other. The only
objective conclusion that can be drawn is that more countries disapprove 
racial segregation than those who do.  Majority, by itself, does not make a
right.

If I were suddenly made a president of a country, I would disapproved 
apartheid.  But, objectively, I cannot say I did it because my culture 
is better. I want to keep in a corner of my mind that I'm not all-knowing, 
and no matter how universally right it may seem, I could be biased or wrong. 
The only justification I can give for my action (without any reservation)
is that I don't like apartheid.

It's too easy to think one's own culture is the "best".  Too many tragedies
have taken place thoughout the history because people have justified 
one's action based on some "absolute" rightness or superiority of one's 
culture, religion, etc.  I'm optimistic that mankind can gradually gather
"universal rules", but since there's no one to tell us what we've collected
is right, one has to be always mindful of possibility of error. 








Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.china