Cultural Relativism, Amoralism and Brutal Murder

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I recently came across a blog post by someone named Crankosaur who I think was basically saying that while recognizing and respecting cultural differences we can still pass moral judgment in the context of culture.

In the social sciences, it is important to keep an attitude of cultural relativism when studying people from different backgrounds than you. You have to keep in mind the different attitudes their background has instilled in them and they way they perceive things differently. But just because you take their actions in the context of their lives doesn’t mean that you don’t pass judgement on them. Morally reprehensible behavior is morally reprehensible, even if a person’s culture does encourage it.

I say this because recently, two women and three teenaged girls were wounded by gunshot and buried alive in Pakistan. Their crime? Wanting to marry of their own will. A Pakistani senator, Sardar Israrullah Zehri, defended these actions by saying that burying women alive for independent thinking is part of their "tribal custom". [...]Zehri’s comment had no truth behind it, it was merely a way of diminishing the seriousness of the crime, which it wouldn't have even if there was truth to it. Murder is murder, no matter what kind of excuses you can dream up.

My response: I subscribe to the philosophy of amoralism. That's philosophy. Whether or not I want people to have the right not to be murdered in society is politics. It is terribly disgusting to me to think that women and girls were brutally murdered especially over something as basic as wanting to freely marry. But the problem is even bringing cultural values, morality or religion into the issue at all. I do not care what anyone's moral beliefs, religious beliefs or culture is; we need to stop murder, especially such brutal and relatively unprovoked murder.

I believe Crankosaur correctly points out the foolishness of treating an action such as murder as tolerable in one culture and intolerable in another. But she then seems to suggest that moral values are somehow more superior and objective than cultural values. But we could have the same problem the one person's morality tolerates an action that anther person's doesn't, which is the danger in using moral, religious or cultural terms and values to fight dangerous behaviors such as murder and dangerous such murderers--another morality, culture or religion can always exist that supports actions that yours opposes. We need to make our case against murder on grounds that are just as true, compelling and agreeable regardless of one's culture, religion or morality.

What do you think?

[Alun]

I think a part of the issue here is a clash of terminology. Your use of the word murder, in an of itself, has a very fundamental moral component as well. Drawing distinctions about how cultural and individual variation affects morality is a core issue of ethics.

The idea of breaking down moral statements into 'amoral' ones is interesting, but I think it quickly becomes difficult to use. To use your own argument here, you're trying to take the statement, "murder is morally wrong" and make it amoral by saying "murder disgusts me." But the word "murder" in and of itself implies things like intent and deliberation--and moral wrongness. Different people do judge the word differently. E.g., even on this forum, some people have tried to cast soldiers as murderers. I happen to think an executioner is a murderer. Did the people who killed those women view themselves as murderers?

That something is a moral statement just means it follows the form, "You should (or should not) do x in y circumstances." Tracing the implied "because of z" is not so simple. To be truly 'amoral' you'd need to go to the core of your meta-ethical syste. Why does a human life need protecting, for example? Is it only because doing otherwise is 'disgusting'? Can you really answer that question without talking about values, good, bad, right or wrong?

[Tuan Nguyen]

I felt attracted when I read your post about cultural relativism. I think that you describe very in detail about it. When you said that cultural relativism is the idea that different cultures have different moral codes. I really agree with you because I think that different cultures follow different codes of conduct. I also agree with you that if we base on ECR (ethics cultural relativism), it can be right for someone in this culture, and it can be wrong in another culture. According to ECR, there is a mistake when we are judging another culture if we base on our current culture. For those reasons, if we seem ECR is correct, no one could criticize practices such as genocide or slavery. A world where cultural relativism is law, criticizing your own society would be forbidden. murder could never be an accepted form of ethics in a society. If everyone was free to murder whom they liked at any time, no one could feel secure. People would avoid contact with others as much as possible, so society would collapse. Cultural relativism has merit in theory, but it does not necessarily practice. Humans in general have a very similar set of values despite coming from sometimes vastly different cultural backgrounds. While the execution of those values might differ, there exists a set of morals shared by every society today. People will not be able to exist if we do not have it. In my opinion, I think that morality is not determined by culture. Cultural relativism is the subjective, and moral codes are objective. The standard of morality is based on Objectivist ethics.

[Hunahpu94]

"Culture is the product of the unperturbed human mind through the medium of language. It then erects institutions and social structures into which it secretes itself and, sort of, lives in a private Idaho." - Terence McKenna

Language operates as a record keeper. Much as DNA is a record for the genetic makeup of an organism, so too does language record ideas and beliefs about the world. Take for example the ideas that are propagated to define what it means to be an American or any nationality. For these ideas to make sense you have to be a part of that culture and its language for these claims to have any merit.
Culture can be comparable to a "virtual reality." When an individual is subscribed to these realities they are also subsequently influenced by them. Taking these cultural propositions as something true and just in the world can at times be misleading, and may even derail an individuals behavior to commit acts of an alarming nature, such as the murder of women for wanting autonomy.

Now, this is the question. Is it correct to justify murder through the use of culture?
As was proposed in the original post, we must be wary of how we explain our reasons for this. Being careful not to make assumptions based on one's personal, moral, or cultural justifications.

I find that every possible explanation I try to offer to this problem is in one way or another tainted with assumptions based on personal reasoning. Reasoning that naturally isn't void of preconceived notions about the world. I have found no "pure" premise to base my arguments on and honestly I don't know if I am even capable of doing so.

In this situation, I know that murder is wrong because it feels wrong to me. I can offer no other explanations other than this one.

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is non-sense, in the realization of the global village it can only lead to culture clashes. A morality which is applicable across the board must be based upon our common biology, that which promotes life and well being is morality. Our religious traditions on this point are our greatest enemies.