Can a culture be abnormal, evil, neurotic?

There have been societies which went in for human sacrifices, usually of the best & brightest young boys & girls. The general idea was that only the best were worthy enough for the gods. I think the Aztec did this, but am not sure. While it might have been accepted by almost everybody in the culture, it seems inherently evil to me. Could it be considered not evil because it was the norm for the culture? Personally, I would say the culture itself was evil for such a practice.

In modern times, there are some African cultures which practice what they call female circumcision. From descriptions of what is done, it sounds like sadistic mutilation based on the view that women are property rather than people. It is my understanding that it results in women who get little or no pleasure from sex. Aside from my viewing it as evil, I wonder if it might also create a society with a high degree of neurosis.

The Palestinians seem to be deliberately teaching hatred of the Jews to their children and extolling the virtues of dying a martyr. Can this be considered rational behavior because it is the norm of the culture?

Forgetting about current attitudes in the USA, racist attitudes were very prevalent from the Civil War to the middle of the 20th century. It is conceivable that 85-90% of the whites (a 70-80% majority) could have been convinced to vote for legislating that all blacks be deported, and that those resisting be executed. A majority like that could amend the constitution to say most anything. If an overwhelming majority favored such legislation, would that make it ethical to do so?

I personally feel that being a cultural norm does not make certain activities valid behavior.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But they're only not 'normal' to you because of your cultural values. Everything is relative in ethics, you're simply a product of the time and place you grew up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, we have come up with this concept of human rights. Locke said that those were Life, Liberty, and property, and Jefferson flowered it up a bit in the Declaration of Independance. Your first two examples would be considered human rights violations, and we should consider them wrong, but it is up to the people to rebel against this sort of activity.

Tyler:
I guess that means it's ok for me to shoot and kill you if I simply explain to the arresting officers that in my moral code, it's ok to kill people I disagree with?

I know this is just going to cause problems, but I simply cannot allow this statement through. God forbid that palestinians learn to hate an occupying force who constantly threatens them with violence, who brutalizes and humiliates them, who continue to colonize despite an agreement that they would pull out... I know that I would welcome a force to push through the US and force me to live in army patrolled "refugee camps". I would relish the opportunity to be told that the only way the occupying force can ever survive is if Ohio was simply cleansed of all the damn... Ohioans. [Edit: And I would never dream of resisting this, it's my inheretance as someone who lives in Ohio.]

I welcome a peace where Ohio is broken up into settlements for the occupying force, where there are "defended" access roads breaking up my state, where I have to walk through checkpoints to go to my work, where numbers are written or even tattooed on my left hand, in order to identify me as someone from Ohio.

Could it be that the Isreali government, by indiscriminately killing thousands of Palestinian citizens have already taught the new generation to hate Isreal and jewish people?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No Rio, because my culture denies you that right. My culture enforces the right to live. So in my culture, you would be arrested.

While you are in my culture you live by my cultures rules.

 

Riomacleod : A culture which extols martyrdom seems sick to me, especially when it is the young that are encouraged to give up their lives. In Asia, there are those who sell their daughters to the sex industry. In Palestine, they get paid for sons who commit suicide.

While the Israelis do not have clean hands and Sharon seems like a fanatic, you make the Palestinians sound like a bunch of innocent boy scouts being brutalized by an adult motorcycle gang. These are people who just murdered ten or more of their own countrymen (accused of being collaborators). No arrest, trial, or due process of any kind. They were executed in the street. As far as I know, there was general approval of the executions by both civilians and officials. These people send suicide bombers to kill civilians. They people rejoiced over the WTC destruction. These are 12th century barbarians, not civilized 20th century people being brutalized by Genghis Khan. .

As for being oppressed by the Jews, the Palestinians should probably be madder at their Arab brothers than the Jews. Whether it was right or wrong, the creation of Palestine and Israel in 1947 gave the Palestinians a better deal than anything they have had since.

It was not the Jews who started the trouble. As far as anybody will ever know, the Jews would have accepted the status quo established at that time. Maybe the Palestinians would have accepted it also. It was Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, & Iraq that invaded and encouraged Palestinians to leave until the war was over. When that war was over, Jordan was in charge of the West Bank. As far as I know, they never invited any of the Palestinians in the Gaze Strip to come to the West Bank.

I was sent to Israel in 1960 for about a year to teach programming when the Israeli Department of Defense bought computers from the company I worked for. I met quite a few affluent Arabs who had stayed in Israel in 1948. I wonder how many affluent Jews were in Arab countries at that time. There were also a lot of not so affluent Arabs (well over a million) in Israel at that time. How many Jews remained in Arab countries? While it might have existed, I did not notice any animosity between Jews & Arabs when I was there.

Israel accepted Jews from all the Arab nations. Did any of the Arab nations show concern for the Palestinians? The Arab nations have oil wealth and lots of land. Why was there never any suggestion by them that Palestinians were welcome in their countries?

Two years or so ago, the Palestinians were offered less that they wanted, but more than they had ever been offered. It did not seem like a bad deal to me at the time. Were they willing to accept that deal and then try to negotiate or fight for more? Hell no, they started the current round of violence and are paying for it.

It seems to me that the Palestinians have pushed the Jews into a corner from which they have no option but to fight. Arafat has never been willing to accept the concept of a Jewish state. When negotiations did not get what they wanted, the militant Palestinians opted for violence rather than more negotiations. They are getting what they deserve, although it seems to serve no worthwhile purpose to give it to them.

I see no end to the situation other than annihilation of the Jews when the Arab world someday gets the upper hand. If that comes about, I suspect that the Jews will use nuclear weapons rather than peacefully submitting to another holocaust. If I were a Jew, I would use the nukes before going down for the count.

 

I don't think it's fair to say the Palestinian government (what there is of it) pays families for their kids to do suicide bombings. That's like saying that if mother of that Klebold punk who shot people at the Columbine school in the USA had a nervous breakdown and couldn't work any more, and lived on a government pension, the USA government was paying for her kid to kill people. So some Palestinian family's were given money after their kids died. Big deal.

 

I would like to add that if the would gave victoria to NZ then I would fight, when you have no rights to control the goverment that controls you then who wouldn't. The US did (i think you called it the war of independance?)

 

iraq pays the families of the suicide bombers...

 

Welcome to SciForums, Shamoo! Could you drop a few facts on us to support your statement?

Peace.

 

iraq pays the families of the suicide bombers...

 

oops, maybe i shouldn't have hit refresh.

good to be here.

how about: "Saddam Hussein has increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. "

apparently, they also get money from other charities too

from: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2002-04-03/usw_iraq.asp

this is coming from the country with a million starving children

 

I wonder if the mother of that Klebold kid (Columbine high school) has ever collected welfare payments of any kind. Surely that would be the very same thing.

As for Iraq having a million starving kids, well, I wonder how many starving kids and homeless people the USA has...

 

We're treading water here, and soon we will run out of energy. Let us hop on a boat, and move full speed to shore.

Just because it is right in one culture does not mean it is right for those living in that culture.

CRUTCH! Ya'll be an enthocentric freak! Shut yo mouth befo I done call you a radical! Now, gimme some ethos!

I see no problem with passing moral judgement based on my own set of values; we're educated, I feel it is our obligation to do so.

CRUTCH! Shut yo mouth unless you be dropping examples like they hot!

Female genital mutilation. According to Amnesty International's website (link can be found below) there are 6,000 girls a day at risk of this "procedure." 85% of them are in Africa. The procedure involves crudely removing the clitoris, leaving them unable to orgasm. It's done for various reasons, one of which is to keep them faithful to their husbands.

Commonly, no methods are used to reduce pain other than standing in cold water to numb the area. Instruments are dirty, and infections are common.

So, Tyler, is this act right, simply because another culture thinks it is?

CRUTCH! Quit with that pathos jive, gimme some of dat logos!

Here's my problem with the mantra of the enthnocentrists. Their basic thesis is "A culture ought not impose moral judgement on a different culture." That in itself is a moral judgement imposed on another culture, thus negating the point. Yeah, it's a technical flaw, but I think it's still valid.



Amnesty International - http://www.amnesty.org
Female genital mutilation -
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

 

"I see no problem with passing moral judgement based on my own set of values; we're educated, I feel it is our obligation to do so."

For another nation? You feel it is your job to be police of the world? Well, for one, this is a reason why so many people hate America. Is homosexuality okay? A huge amount of nations are now okay with it. Including mine. So is it our duty to impose this feeling on you?




"Female genital mutilation. According to Amnesty International's website (link can be found below) there are 6,000 girls a day at risk of this "procedure." 85% of them are in Africa. The procedure involves crudely removing the clitoris, leaving them unable to orgasm. It's done for various reasons, one of which is to keep them faithful to their husbands.

Commonly, no methods are used to reduce pain other than standing in cold water to numb the area. Instruments are dirty, and infections are common"

So is this right? To me? No, of course not. But I don't believe I should be the one to control another nation. I don't believe I should be the one to decide the will of another culture. I don't believe I have that authority. I wish I did. But I don't. America, thinks it does. Look at the cold war. America wanted to stop communism from spreading. So, wherever a communist upheavel looked possible (even if it was the will of the people), America would crush it. America (and, apparently Americans) feel they deserve to decide the fate of other people. Is this not undemocratic? Let the people decide the future of themselves.

 

Female circusition is child abuse in most countrys

WHY ISN'T male circumsition?

There is nothing to remove the pain (i don't think they use a local)

It leaves a sesitive are exposed

WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE DO IT?

Sorry about that

just want to know who would be crule enought to inflict that on a child

 

circumsicion (dont knwo how to spell it, too lazy to look it up) on men is not detremental in any way. In fact, it's cleaner.

 

Its got to be painfull and that skin is there for a reason

 

While we are at it

Remove guys niples

I mean they serve no purpose

guys don't breast feed

 

Asguard: There's a huge difference between removing a little skin - I mean, I suppose it must hurt like bloody hell, but would be over quickly enough - and taking away a woman's right to ever experience sexual satisfaction.

Sorry, they ain't anywhere near the same.