Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
the most obvious reasons are:
-it removes peoples' ability for self-determination
-it robs people of their national and personal identity
-its exploitative nature often destroys the economic sustainability of a country
-historically it is virtually inseparable from some form of racism
-it promotes the idea of one culture as being inherent superior to another and the 'inferior' culture needing to be improved
-it frequently has and continues to involves genocide
surely a culture that practices racism, genocide and so on is inherently better than one that doesn't? If no culture is better than any other and none needs improving, then where does the moral imperative to avoid racism etc come from?
Not to mention cultures that condone things like burying young girls alive for talking to boys. Is it neo-colonialist to say they need improving?
errrr.....what?!?!?! i don't really follow your first paragraph at all.
it would be neo-colonialist for a Western power to step in and do the improving themselves, yeh. i mean, as mentioned in the thread about this, Western values are probably morally superior from as absolute a perspective as we can pretend to have, but to go in and meddle would still promote a West good/East bad dialectic, and given historical precedent would prolly not stop and purely preventing young girls being buried alive. also, it goes without saying that the Turkish police force (and largely - i realise this has perhaps been eroded in recent years) secular government are more than capable of sorting this out without some other nation striding in to do it for them.
you seem to be confusing two rather different points - one the one hand you seem to be arguing that there is no way, in principle, that any culture can be better than another, and then on the other you seem to be arguing that some can be better after all but that it's imprudent or impractical to try and change others. I really don't understand what "from as absolute a perspective as we can pretend to have" means - sounds to me like you're striking for an awkward middle ground between relativism and absolutism.
Tbh I wish I hadn't made the point about the Turkish girl; I think my point is stronger if you focus on the morally objectionable things that western nations have done, because that's where cultural relativists really contradict themselves. Are racism, genocide, exploitation etc. really only bad because we decided, at some point in our cultural history, that they are? Is morality really that historically contingent? What if we never had come to that realization - would we simply have been able to continue doing those things with no external moral accountability?
I guess my fundamental problem with cultural relativists is they often fail to see that it applies to all cultures or it doesn't apply at all. If eastern cultures are off the hook for their morally failings, then so too are western cultures.
could be rights based/ religious/ utilitarian/ teleological, whatever you like...
I put it down to jealousy.
say what you want about lord kitchener, that dude could rock some srs face fuzz
coupled with the physical brutality and exploitation necessary to enforce it