Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

There are many ways of structuring societal interaction, and FGM is one of them. They are all valid, and all of them generally function.However, not all ways are equally desirable or valuable. Desireable to who? Valuable to who? People, is the basic answer to that. When cultures come into contact with one another, there will be a clash. Some ways of doing things will vanish, some will be adopted and adapted creating a kind of merging - others will remain unaffected.Who decides on these kinds of things? The people involved in the clash. At the individual level: neighbours might clash over FGM, one having done it to his daughter, another revolted by the idea. Maybe one side will be convinced to change as a result, maybe they won't. However, both sides will instigate some degree of social consequences on the other - which may yet again cause one of them to change their minds about affairs.It can also happen at the political level. One political power exerting argument, and political consequence on another political power to stop doing something (or start doing something) such as FGM. It might elicit change, which is the primary function of exerting consequences for behaviour that is not desired in society and incentives to behaviour that is.You might argue that it isn't necessarily right to apply pressure either political or social to elicit a change in another group's culture but that argument effectively undermines itself since applying pressure to elicit change is part of our culture and your argument can only lead at best to changing our culture.

Why does changing one's own culture make sense? What is one's own culture - where does my culture stop? The moment I leave Britain, or the moment I leave Manchester, or the moment I leave my house?I am aware of no boundary that we have set for ourselves that we ourselves cross. We here in Britain have been invaded by American culture, was that wrong? We have exchanged cultural elements with India. Was that wrong? I'm not sure limits are possible. Of course I would. And maybe my culture would vanish and be replaced by a far reaching Chinese culture. Chinese culture has likewise been altered by Communism. Who can say which one will win, but there are certain outcomes I would prefer. Well, the time for nation states may be limited - who knows? Either way, I don't have a problem with either national or cultural sovereignty. There are things we try and stop nations doing, and there are things we try and stop cultures doing. I like cultural diversity too. Humans are renowned for doing some things in different ways and that's a good thing. We don't have to agree on all things. We will just eventually come to agree that some things should be criminal always. We stand up against slavery and child labour (sort of), that does not imply that disagreeing about music will become a crime. Of course not. As I mentioned before, the cultures that do not support women's rights will try and change our culture. Being a culture that does support women's rights we will try and change their culture. I don't follow. If we believe in natural rights, why should we not feel the compulsion to make those natural rights universal? How does that compulsion lead to the giving up of those natural rights?If we manage to convince other people that certain cultural practices should be abandoned, how does this mean that we give up the right to free speech, for example?

How does it being one's own culture make it make sense? Limits can't be set, only self-imposed. So the natural rights you have to come to accept as part of your culture
should set a line that you should not cross when dealing with other
cultures. I don't think anybody here would disagree with you. All I
have said is that this works both ways. I don't see how the nation is the largest unit of community, there are
plenty of different cultures within one nation - and there are plenty of
cultures that exist way beyond nations. I would have thought the world
was the largest unit of community we have. And I'm sorry to say it, but
other nations have every right to refuse to engage in trade with your
nation should they wish. That might end up forcing a change in your
nation and it would be perfectly legitimate. I'm not suggesting we got to war at the drop of the cultural hat. Life is filled with apparant contradictions. I don't see why it is
hypocritical to desire that other people are afforded the same comforts or
rights as you yourself are. We have national laws. Just like we have international laws. What's the
big mystery? You said that disagreement itself will become criminal, and yet there is no
compelling reason to think that if we spread 'freedom of speech' that would
end up with disagreement becoming illegal. Where do people that want to
engage in slavery turn to when the whole world has the idea it is bad?
Sucks to want a culture nobody else wants, but there you go. Depends what you mean by 'fine'. It is completely normal and natural and
to be expected that other people will fight for their culture to be held by
others...cultures are often viral like that. I'm simply part of that,
hoping that the way I do things will spread to other people, and at the
same time embracing the idea that I might have the way I do things changed
by others. As wiki says:

quote:

---

Natural rights are a theory of universal rights that are seen as
inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or
beliefs.

---

Right, and we secured some of them for ourselves, you guys went to town
with them thanks to one of our guys (cheers TP), and then gave them right
back to us. It was brilliant. When you conceive of universal rights, it would be somewhat hypocritcal if
you didn't desire all governments to universally accept them. Some
governments won't be argued into adopting them and military force or
economic pressure is needed to elicit that change. So other cultures should be forced into acting against their conscience in
matters of who they want to buy their products off? If a nation endorses
child labour, we should still buy their products? We should sell them
material that can aid them maintain the child labour economy? Freedom has to be fought for, there is nothing inherently wrong in fighting
for it. Power has to be fought for, and there is nothing inherently wrong
in fighting for it. There is a struggle between the quest for power versus
the quest for freedom from other's power. I'm on freedom's side. I don't
see how this ends up with me giving up free speech - could you try spelling
it out for me?

And the reason changing another culture makes sense is that it would fall within the limits we took for ourselves. So I can't take part in political pressure to emancipate women in other countries but it makes sense for me to try and change the country-life culture within my own nation even though it isn't my culture? My street isn't united as a community, but we have to learn to play by certain rules in order to live with one another peaceably. As we come into contact with other nations, certain rules will emerge that enable us to live together peaceably. Wolves is just silly. How often do Wolves in Germany encounter Wolves in America? So we are in agreement that social and political consequences to enact cultural change is legitimate? Of course that would be hypocritical. If I was living in a culture with limited I would want to have freedom 'imposed' upon me. Therefore it is not hypocritical to want to 'impose' freedom on others. What of it? Well obviously. I haven't said otherwise. But if you conceive that certain rights should be universal, then it would be inconsistent to not want those rights to be universal. I happens all the time. It's part of being alive. It's part of humanity. I love it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight it. Taking away people's lives is to be avoided whenever possible. That's my culture and I would want it more universal. Other people's cultures might suggest we should nuke everybody.My solution is that we accept this and try and change the other culture. Your solution is...what? We should let the other culture stay as it is for the sake of multiculturalism?

---

If I understand your position it is this:It is OK to enact certain social consequences for cultural disparity (economic sanctions for example) in some situations. We should expect other countries to do likewise to us. We should expect argument and debate as a means to change our culture as we change others.We should have limits on how far we go to change certain cultural practices - presumably those limits are somewhat determined by the severity of the cultural practice. We don't drop nukes because we don't like American self pitying Rock, and prefer Brit-rock, for example.If so, you presumably don't see any problem with using argument and boycotting and political pressures to try and elicit change in cultures that engage in extreme body modification. I don't think nator suggests we nuke or go to war as a first option for these kinds of things. In the end then, you seem to be agreeing with those people you say you disagree with.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Why? What does voting rights have to do with this? Do people with no voting rights in their own country have no say about their own culture now? You keep using the word 'force'. What do you mean by it? And there is tacit agreement that this works internationally too. You got the 'right' to not allow royalty by force, remember? Fine, and when they come into contact with one another, if there are any differences in wolf culture - there will be a change. Since humans come into contact with one another all the time - directly and indirectly - this is much more common in humans than it is with wolves. Also - we have a much more complex culture than wolves will have due to superior communication. So...what exactly is your problem then? Has somebody here suggested action above and beyond economic sanction or political consequence as a result of of FGM or similar? No.What I have been saying since the first post is that we should And that many nations make up a community of nations. As a person I limit my social consequences and allow the government to be responsible for some of them. The government here limits its social consequences amongst the community of nations. Only if you don't understand my position. I explained why it isn't a problem for my position...any country that wants to nuke us should have their culture changed so that they don't want to nuke us when they get hold of nukes. I don't think we should try and preserve a nuke-happy culture. Right - and I wouldn't want people going to war with us over Brit-pop but I could understand them going to war with us over torturing women. However, if they don't want to buy Brit-pop CDS that's fine as a social consequence. The limits are defined by us, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything I haven't seen any lack of limitations. Could you show me this 'lack'? I thought international law was pretty much a 'document' of limitations on what consequences are acceptable and what are not.

Yes, legislative force is one way. Social pressure is another. Sometimes the two work together. Obviously at the nation level I am not directly affecting the actions of my government - this is not a direct democracy. I can only indirectly influence these things. I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that - but I've not denied this. Of course I understand that. That was my point. If it missed your point, why did you bring voting up? Yes, that comment was tongue in cheek. Well of course it doesn't. Wolves, being enormously different from humans, fail as a useful analogy. If an American wolf believed that infanticide is the wrong way to control populations, he might enact social consequences (refusing to share kills) against German wolves who think it is the best way. The Germans might do likewise. If one of the two groups decides to force the issue, a lupine war might break out.Since Wolves don't have complex communications, interlupinal trade or lots of international migration...I don't see what you are trying to say with your analogy. You can have both a recognition of shared humanity and accept that there are still differences, and some differences will not change, some will and some differences will vanish. Sometimes new differences emerge. What is on the table depends on the circumstances. If the human rights violations are severe enough, warfare may well be on the table. Warfare might well not be the best solution - and often it isn't. I don't see any value in going to war based on the practice of FGM, but I do see there might be value in going to war to end a culture of genocide. Why make that assumption? Enforcement of human rights is more important than keeping certain cultural practices - but if a solution is proposed that will cause more suffering than the cultural practices...then it should be rejected. I imagine given the scenario - I'd be dead. I would embrace it in the spirit I originally made the embracing statement. It's part of being alive and it's terrible and frightening but also wonderful. That doesn't mean I will be happy with the specific situation, or that I wouldn't be motivated to try and change it. No, I do not favour dropping limits on forms of coercion. It means I favour having limits, and accepting that they work both ways. If you don't see a reason to go to war that is fine. However, the society isn't inflicting damage on itself (in either case), but on other human beings. Sure - some governments ignore those limits when they feel they can, and I am against them for doing so and feel the international community should stop being pussies and politically punish Britain and America for being such gigantic dicks. Maybe they are doing, but it is hardly a big public punishment. That might be the reason they are giving now, but the reason they gave then was that Iraq posed an imminent threat and as such the limits were different than if the act was humanitarian in nature.