From: blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: What is culture? (was: Brainwashied
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:43:19 GMT
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.


I wrote:
=> >Seriously though... I never insisted that all moral judgements are
=> >simply matters of opinion, I just couldn't find any here that weren't
=> >(still haven't). And I am not arguing that the practice of judging
=> >cultures is wrong, but that the *method* of judging cultures is wrong,
=> >if it ultimatley relies solely on personal preference.

<Keith Moulton made a response along very similar lines in another
post. Please excuse me Keith, and others, if I make a response to
yourself and others using Mr. Withers good words as a preface.>

In article <2606@usna.NAVY.MIL>, wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL
(Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>) writes:
=> Aha! So please give an example of a moral judgment which you do not regard
=> as merely a matter of opinion and explain why.  I've resisted getting into
=> a discussion of what constitutes proper justification for moral judgments
=> because I think this would lead to a morass of thorny philosophical questions
=> and I don't have that much time for typing.  My own theory is that `valid'
=> moral principles are those which are fittest to survive.  A moral principle
=> may be unfit to survive by weakening a society which adheres thereto, or
=> even by strengthening a society which adheres thereto, but being found
=> unpleasant by the members of the society.  (I view extreme versions of the
=> work ethic as belonging to this second category.)  A fit-to-survive moral
=> principle is `true' in the sense that all societies eventually come to agree
=> on it.  

I like the analogy to evolutionary principles a lot, for in practice
Western morality has pretty much followed that model with some success
and forward movement, as both you and Keith (in another post... do read
it!) have alluded to. It's a really good point.

Yes... I have been thinking about how I would answer my own questions.

=> Aha! So please give an example of a moral judgment which you do not regard
=> as merely a matter of opinion and explain why.

OK... I will try to do so, and I'm willing to go out on a limb to 
explain it. Consider this my feeble attempt, but at least an attempt.

Now... I am not a particularly religious person. I like some things
about some of them, but none of them particularly. But I think
that half-crazed Nazarene hit a big grandslam when he spouted
the conclusion of a progression of thought that includes much in 
the way of universal morality in it when he said: "Do unto others
as you would have them do unto you."

(If readers would please... I would prefer to stay away from any
pronouncements, religious overtones, or mystical questions about
the late J.C. I wish to confine this discussion - if possible - to
the words themselves and the ideas they represent alone, without
ANY religious bias associated. Can we please maintain that rule?
I could say what I want to say perhaps by using another method,
but for the sake of clarity and understanding, I chose that
"Golden Rule" as a starting point... this time anyway. If you
wish to discuss religion with me, please try by email, but don't
hold your breath waiting for a reply.)

Implicit in the reasoning that arrived at that Golden Rule (GR),
is the assumption that all human beings are equal. The GR was
arrived at by way of that assumption, and includes it. From that
initial assumption that every baby that passes from a human 
mother's woman womb is equal, we progress to the GR, and the
extention of that GR is a wealth, stream, and succession of
morality that is understandable through the application of the
GR to most human issues or morality issues. The GR, in that way,
is the embodiment of equality, and the operational concept
that has to be assumed if equality is to be assumed.

The major flaw in this is, "Why do we have to assume human
equality?" Well... we don't necessarily, but it's pretty
difficult to argue against by any rational means, or even
any mystical means. Even if certain cultural myths tend to
seperate certain peoples as "chosen people", for example,
the presence of that people's very human frailties or
lack of power, insight, intelligence, luck, or possesion
of any other human characteristic in clear superiority to
anyone else makes their arguments unsupportable. In 
light of the fact that no race or people has ever been
demonstrated to be superior over time speaks for itself.
Most people realize this in their hearts in lack of any
evidence to the contrary, and equality has to be
ultimately recognizable by anyone with half a brain.
As a matter of fact, as time goes on, and more common
methods of comparing individual human beings are
happening every day, the concept of equality is becoming
more and more self-evident.
{Moreover, there are even economic reasons why equality
should be the norm, and failing to let every human
reach their full potential by artificial constraints
is a shame and a waste.}

(Well, all this may be classified as an opinion, I suppose,
but at least human equality can be supported pretty
well by fairly objective means, and human inequality
fairly easily debunked. I guess as intelligence and 
education has been more widespread, the idea is catching
on more, and Mr. Withers can be happy the Equality creature
can live and procreate.}

Equality by definition = same. Recognition of that equality
puts us all in the same tribe, with the same lot in life,
and the same goals. This is also implicit in the equality of
humanity.

If you accept the equality of humanity, and that should
include womanity too, then applying the GR to a human
scenario is your prerequisite, as the embodiment of that
equality concept. Put another way, "There is no basis
for treating anyone else differently than yourself." -
a ascendent idea leading to the GR. So the concept of
equality inevitably leads to an implicit morality -
a refelection of that equality.

This, I believe, is where John Locke established his
ideas and was a large influence on Jeffersonian ideals
of "inalienable rights" (that wording is striking
in light of what I have said above), and the like.
Seems so, as they "walked the walk and talked the talk"
in any case.

So ultimately, my answer of absolute morality is
the answer to this question, "Is it doing unto others..."
or, more like I might say, "Is everybody being treated
the fucking same here?"

In cases that people have presented, such as Nazis,
infanticide, Mayan human sacrifice, female circumcision
(are you circumcized, BTW :-), they all fail the GR test,
and therefore fail the human equality test, and therefore
are immoral for lack of a basis for being moral. 

This may be some basis for comparing cultures, but still
not everything. Everybody may be treated the same within
a particular culture, but not relative to another culture.
It is a way of judging the morality of that culture on some
level relative to another culture, but not a way
of judging the priorities one culture may assign to certain
issues whereby it may have a 'higher' morality in some areas
but not in others. I still stand by my assessment about
the difficulties of comparing cultures, even if I do have
at least my own concept of absolute morality, or as Tad
Perry put it: universal truth. 

But if you want to tell someone why racism is wrong, you should
have some basis to do so, and I hope I explained mine well
enough to understand. I found it ain't easy.

- Bill Lambert

(PS - My thanks and regrets to anyone who took the time to
wade through this.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan