Cultural Acceptance, where do you draw the line?

When you hear stories from other countries like female Genital Mutilation or something along those similar lines, do you accept that other places view things in a different light then you do or do you condemn the people who done it and see it as an abuse to human rights?

I draw the line where it, whatever it is, becomes harmful to those other than the practitioner.

Short answer - I don't give a shit.
Long answer - I don't care much for people on the other side of the globe. I don't even want to know what they're doing with their children as I will never get to meet them and I am too worried about myself and my future.

Well, it's a bit awkward. Most people are likely to be against FGM, not so likely to be against male circumscion, and probably aren't against pressuring people to get cosmetic surgery.

Now, there are sliding scales of harm and consent there, but where to draw the line is a bit tricky.

thaluikhain:
Well, it's a bit awkward. Most people are likely to be against FGM, not so likely to be against male circumscion, and probably aren't against pressuring people to get cosmetic surgery.

Now, there are sliding scales of harm and consent there, but where to draw the line is a bit tricky.

FGM is also not just one type - there are different variations to the practice, one in particular which is no different from the 'traditional' male circumcision.

Well, there's no clear line.
Personally, I'm only culturally relativist to the point of what I consider to be damage; especially irreversible damage. Beyond that, I'll happily say that I think it's wrong and bad and immoral.
I guess I could always add "by my standards", but I don't think that sort of disclaimer is really necessary (unless you're talking to a Creationist who'd try to use that statement without the disclaimer to say "you believe in objective morality, therefore - through the power of non sequitur - my particular god must exist", when neither of that would be the case).

EDIT: WTF is that avatar, Griffin Stallion? Wait, I think I remember your name. You're the Hitler-apologist, right? Disgusting.
Post 113: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.398146-Political-Memes-Sayings-you-wish-would-die?page=4
And a ban-jumper? Reported.

When their culture clashes with our culture, divisions are met. It is best that they conform to our cultural norms while they are in our cultural areas, while we conform to theirs in their lands.

I don't agree with what people do I'm my own country. I sure as heck can't worry over what people half way around are doing. If that's how things are run there I can't really object.

I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

When it inflicts discernible physical harm upon non-consenting people, who've themselves caused no harm.

Anything above that threshold is fine by me. Anything below it is vile, as are anyone who adhere to it... and deserving of having equal harm befall them. Any person who for instance believes that homosexual conduct, apostasy, Jewish ancestry etc. etc. should be punished by death, is reciprocally itself unworthy of life due to such belief.

Your rights end where my rights begin.

I guess that's an easy way to see it.

With things like female genital mutilation I condemn the practice, not the people.

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

The principle of "the hand found in the pocket that it does not own is forfeit" as a deterant was very common once upon a time. You knew not to do it. If you choose to do it, you knew the consequences.

Imperator_DK:
When it inflicts discernible physical harm upon non-consenting people, who've themselves caused no harm.

Anything above that threshold is fine by me. Anything below it is vile, as are anyone who adhere to it... and deserving of having equal harm befall them. Any person who for instance believes that homosexual conduct, apostasy, Jewish ancestry etc. etc. should be punished by death, is reciprocally itself unworthy of life due to such belief.

So you want people to die for wanting people to die? Or did I misread that?

micahrp:
[quote="Imperator_DK" post="528.402469.16607230"]...
So you want people to die for wanting people to die? Or did I misread that?

I have as much - or rather as little - problem with them being killed as they have with these innocents being killed. So it's more a complete lack of any sort of ethical obligation towards them, due to their lack of worth.

Well, you really can't make a rule for every situation in this kind of thing from what I've seen. You can't go over there and try and make people stop because unless you're trying to stop a literal genocide you can only make things worse. However when people holding a certain cultural belief come to your country that little stipulation goes away and you can start drawing lines. Personally I would put it at anything that harms people other then the one holding the view. Thats when it becomes unacceptable.

I draw the line at any physical damage done that can't be justified through a modern view on the world or goes against what a person wants.

I mean female babies shouldn't have to have their genitals mutilated because they can't say anything about it but a grown women could get it done if she wanted to because in some cultures if a women doesn't get that done then a man won't marry her. That is something the woman has to live with.

Now old things that are justified through a modern viewpoint, male circumcision. While it does come with a decrease in sensitivity it also comes with a reduced chance of infection by aids, hepatitis, and reduce urinary tract infections. That I think benefits enough that decision can be made without real harm to the child and actually possible benefits.

micahrp:

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

The principle of "the hand found in the pocket that it does not own is forfeit" as a deterant was very common once upon a time. You knew not to do it. If you choose to do it, you knew the consequences.

I don't care, we're better then that now. We no longer live in the 1200's yet they insist on living in the dark ages. Amputation to me is barbaric and a crime against humanity. I will never respect muslims if their religion demands this of the law nor do I feel they DESERVE any respect. If they don't want to be feared then don't amputate your own people!

If being afraid of that and speaking out against it is a crime to them then I guess I'm a vile lawbreaker.

The law is the law. What else is there to say?

I think someone else posted this.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Zeckt:

micahrp:

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

The principle of "the hand found in the pocket that it does not own is forfeit" as a deterant was very common once upon a time. You knew not to do it. If you choose to do it, you knew the consequences.

I don't care, we're better then that now. We no longer live in the 1200's yet they insist on living in the dark ages. Amputation to me is barbaric and a crime against humanity. I will never respect muslims if their religion demands this of the law nor do I feel they DESERVE any respect. If they don't want to be feared then don't amputate your own people!

If being afraid of that and speaking out against it is a crime to them then I guess I'm a vile lawbreaker.

Oh sorry if you thought I supported the policy. I was just pointing out the origin and the thought behind it.

I am just as much against mutilation as I am against the thievery. Both shouldn't ever happen. On the other hand if thievery does still happen that means we AREN'T better than the old times. How do you propose the removal of the causal act and that would eliminate any need for a consequence? "Good men don't need rules."

Zeckt:
I will never respect muslims if their religion demands this of the law nor do I feel they DESERVE any respect.

Why assume it's the religion? Yes, certain Islamic countries in the middle east might not have developed beyond that stage, but then there's plenty of muslim nations in the world. Indonesia is the largest, and they don't follow antiquated middle eastern doctrines. Presumably they might follow antiquated Oceania doctrines about certain things, but that has nothing to do with Islam.

I don't really care as long as it doesn't effect me and my life.

From an anthropologist, one that studies cultures, thinking that the "modern" ways of living is superior to other, more "primitive" traditions is exceptionally narrow-minded and ethnocentric (think culturally based racism). Most cultural practices were created with some form of socio-economic reason. One theory on why Judaism banned the consumption of pigs was because trying to raise pigs in that environment was highly inefficient and culturally detrimental at the time. Eating shellfish in the rivers and lakes raised algae-levels that would kill off fish and other resources as well as polluting the water supply, thus were banned as well. Many cultural practices developed over many generations trying to preserve not just their way of life but the continuation of their people. FGM may be, to the Western world abhorrent of vile, and to less industrialized cultures that practice it, aspects of our way of life can often be seen as equally repulsive.

That said, justifying honor killings or physical harm onto the unwilling to me is nigh impossible and to be fair, Western cultures enact their own forms of forced physical conformity that while less physically invasive, is no less harmful.

I have no abstract line. Such things tend to be excuses not to judge specific situations according to their own merits by instead relying on a series of categories, to justify mental laziness. I can only say "But that's their culture" is an argument that has never mollified my sense of outrage at what I perceive to be injustice. For example, it is currently American culture (though only generally, as things are improving on this front) to deny gay people rights straight people enjoy; am I then required to accept this and do nothing to change it because that's my culture?

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

A certain country employs a "3-Strikes" rule which can result in the death penalty for similarly petty crimes.

This is totally relevant, because most people don't actually know what this term really means.

Cultural Relativism

I draw the line at this mutilation, but that's not to say that that is where the line is drawn.

I can disagree with any culture I like if I think it's stupid or barbaric. They have the freedom to practice their customs, but not the freedom to be heard. And I have the freedom to criticize their asses for partaking in such illogical rituals.

The world exists not in black and white or shades of grey. It is a spectrum with black at one end and white at the other with greys in-between.

We are aware of other cultures and they have some practises we disapprove of and some we outright condemn (I'll refer to these as points of issue). These acceptable points of issue can be understood as a result of whatever set of ideas and events idea and events you see as making the two cultures distinct. However the unacceptable points of Issue are practices you feel can never be morally tolerated.

Is like how you can understand and except why Koreans eat dogs because they come from a culture that dose not contain the same extreme admiration for the dog that is part of European and North American history.
But then you cant understand anyway in which the practise of cutting of peoples hands would be acceptable.

Practise and morality in a culture can be viewed relatively but there is a points were they cross a line and cannot be tolerated.

-dyslexics of the world untie-

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. If they cannot assimilate into our culture, they should get out
image

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

Basically all justice systems have a 66~% recidivism rate. That means for every three criminals that are caught, two of them will go right back to committing crimes. This is best seen in the US actually, because they've conducted many studies and tried many different methods of incarceration and rehabilitation. The only time that the recidivism rate seems to drop is when you either don't let people out of prison, or you lobotomize criminals.

That's why we have the Three-Strikes Policy in the US. If you commit three felonies, they throw you in prison and leave you to rot there. I don't see how cutting off a hand (so he can't steal) and a foot (So he can't run) isn't a fitting punishment. He's very unlikely to commit another crime (or at least rob someone), which means the punishment has served it's purpose.

Well for something like those rings some women in Africa used to put around their necks to elongate them over time, or those discs they'd stick in their lips, I'd say something to the effect of "Beyond looking ridiculous, I'm pretty sure that's not doing you any favours health-wise", but I wouldn't actively try to stop them.

Where I would stop someone is in situations like human sacrifice (obviously), making children undergo something irreversable before they're old enough to make their decision on the matter (i.e. circumcision) or continuation of feuds along ethnic, racial or religious lines (since they seem to get violent quickly).

Kopikatsu:

Zeckt:
I just recently read a news story on how some islamic country mutilated a robber by amputating a hand and a foot. Culture or no, that's fucked up!

Basically all justice systems have a 66~% recidivism rate. That means for every three criminals that are caught, two of them will go right back to committing crimes. This is best seen in the US actually, because they've conducted many studies and tried many different methods of incarceration and rehabilitation. The only time that the recidivism rate seems to drop is when you either don't let people out of prison, or you lobotomize criminals.

That's why we have the Three-Strikes Policy in the US. If you commit three felonies, they throw you in prison and leave you to rot there. I don't see how cutting off a hand (so he can't steal) and a foot (So he can't run) isn't a fitting punishment. He's very unlikely to commit another crime (or at least rob someone), which means the punishment has served it's purpose.

Well, according to correctional service canada, only 28% of our offenders went back to prison after getting parole.

I think the USA's reoffender problem is mostly a symptom of their prison system rather than a rule for all criminals worldwide, and given that most people seem to turn to crime as a response to a lack of decent jobs and poor socioeconomic standing rather than intent to hurt people, I'd say inflicting that kind of permenant damage to someone is not the optimal solution.

Where there is no consent, it is wrong. If however person is of a age to understand consequences, then that own individual can chop off their own genitals. If it was done in that manner where you had to do it to yourself, I think the practice would quickly die off, don't you?

If it hurts me I'm against it, if it doesn't then meh. Kind of a live and let live policy.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Personally, I think that as long as some action does not physically or materially harm me, it should be allowed. Gay people having gay anal buttsex in loving marriage? Go ahead. A white supremacist fuck trying to argue the Holocaust only killed 6 million Bubonic plague carrying rats, and no Jews? He's a fucktart, but allowed to express his opinion. Some holier-than-thou asshat who argues that smoking should be banned (note that the act of smoking falls outside my rule, because I doubt that secondhand smoke is as dangerous/deadly as it is, and even then: living in the city itself is already harmful)? I disagree, but I'll allow you the right to think and express as you do.

Do I think of my own habits, customs and morals as superior? Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't have them. Does that mean I seek to assimilate everyone else to my own way of thinking? No, I might be a bastard, but I'm a tolerant bastard. I accept that other people do things differently, even when I don't like them.

However, in countries where they do things differently, I will act accordingly. Their customs might be (subjectively, I stress) inferior, I'm in their society.

I don't entertain the idea that there are such things as separate 'cultures' (though I might be willing, to some extent, to entertain that speakers of different languages see the world differently), therefore it is not an obstacle for me. If I think what someone is doing is wrong, I will confront them about it, and appeals to culture or tradition will hold no water with me.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here