Quote:
Quote by: Zhavric  It's challenging to judge which moral code is "better" because we're going to see our own morals as beneficial and any other code as harmful.
A good litmus is harm. Morals which cause harm are usually a bad thing.
Example:
Fathers have evolved to want to care for their offspring. This is a highly beneficial trait because it helps ensure more offspring grow to adulthood.
Looking at two fathers, one lives in America and the other in Saudi Arabia.
Both have a daughter.
Both men remember how they felt towards girls in their youth and want to protect them from things like STD's and unwanted pregnancy.
The American father has a talk with his daughter. He explains what's acceptable behavior, what's not, explains about birth control and how boys think / what they want. He gives her a pack of condoms telling her he'd rather she wait until marriage, but acknowledging he can't watch her 24/7. He tells her he loves her.
An equally loving father in Saudi Arabia has his daughter's genitals surgically altered just after birth to remove most of her clitoris. He arranges a marriage for her to what he thinks is a good family and gently explains to her what a good thing this is.
Each father would look at the other one in disgust.
"Genital mutilation!?!?"
"Allowing your daughter to fratranize with men!?!?"
However each has the same genetic motivation; protect my offspring.
Genital mutilation is a bad thing by our standards and the standards of most individuals in the world. Does that make it "wrong" or "worse"? To us, yes... are you starting to see the problem with making such a comparison? |
I agree with Zhavric.
omgz...
^^
Universalism is the first refuge of Western rights chauvinists. They haughtily presuppose that it is their beliefs that are the universal ones.
Which moral beliefs are Westerners willing to part with for the sake of universalism? Or is it just a one-way street: what we believe is ours, what you believe is open to negotiation?