Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1603338" data-attributes="member: 3146">They're harder to spot if you take the time to examine actual beliefs rather than simply their outworkings in social practices. Cultural relativism is often overstated.Differing non-moral beliefs often play a large part in radically divergent cultural practices than differing moral beliefs do. For instance, the morality of eating meat is a much discussed topic in certain circles. One could well discuss the difference in social mores (morays are a type of eel, BTW) between vegetarian and nonvegetarian communities in modern America but often, the key difference is not over moral questions of whether pain is bad or murder is bad but rather over the non-moral questions of whether animals feel pain, how cruel farming practices are, and whether or not there is a morally significant difference between humans and animals. Observing me fanatical PETA members in what we eat, wear, and honor, you would observe a distinct  difference in our mores but the questions at the root of our differences might well be non-moral in nature.To provide another example, a certain polynesian tribe was known to kill their elders when they reached a certain age or were otherwise clearly ready to die by casting coconuts or some other fruit at them. There is a clear difference between their mores which obviously commended this practice and mine which would condemn it. However, it turns out that the difference here is a result not of moral beliefs but of non-moral, metaphysical beliefs. They believed that their behavior guaranteed safe passage into the afterlife for their elders. I believe it has nothing to do with the eternal fate of their parents.For yet another example, compare Aristotle's philosophy about slavery and the position of men and women with modern American beliefs. If we believed, as Aristotle did, that certain people, by nature, were suited to be slaves and that the highest good they could achieve was in that role or that there were morally significant differences in the kinds of goods possible for men and for women, his acceptance of slavery and his apparent sexism would be defensible. However, due to a difference in non-moral belief we reach dramatically different judgements from Aristotle.Now, differences in non-moral belief don't unambiguously account for all differences in perceived social mores but if you peel the effects of different situations and non-moral beliefs away, you find a good deal more similarity between various cultures' ethical beliefs than you would find simply by observing the surface.And if you're willing to flat-out say "the ancient Babylonians were evil" (something positively encouraged by the alignment system) then there's no difficulty explaining why they enjoyed playing catch with babies on spears.</blockquote>

Verification