Cultural Relativism is wrong

[philosopher]

I don't know much about Nazis but are people who belong to the Nazi parties these days actively calling for the extermination of anyone? The big thing these days seems to be closing borders and deporting people, not killing them. And I think that is something I've heard of Nazis proposing. Are you suggesting that people who more specifically want to close borders and deport people should be exterminated too?

No, I don't want to illegalize those who want to close borders.

Nazi-parties may not call for extermination of anyone, in public. But we know what they did last time the nazi party was in charge, and the nazi party has never apologized for the genocide their predecessors did.

Therefore we can safely assume they still call for extermination, they just don't say it publicly.

[Immanuel Can]

in Denmark, there is a growing number of nazis.

Okay, possibly so. I can't know about Denmark. But as I say, in North America, "Nazi" is generally no more than a pejorative.

What's "a growing number?"

How many? I mean, going from 3-5 is a "growing number." So's going from 1,000 to 10,000. Any idea of the real scope there? Does the party have a seat in parliament, or a major media outlet, or an ability to march in the streets? What's it got?

I understand that Denmark was the only country in Europe to preserve almost all of its Jews. That seems rather not-Nazi, doesn't it? I'd be surprised if the Nazis found it a very congenial home.

My impression of the Danes is as not terribly violent...at least, not since they invaded England in the 10th Century.

[philosopher]

in Denmark, there is a growing number of nazis.

Okay, possibly so. I can't know about Denmark. But as I say, in North America, "Nazi" is generally no more than a pejorative.

What's "a growing number?"

How many? I mean, going from 3-5 is a "growing number." So's going from 1,000 to 10,000. Any idea of the real scope there? Does the party have a seat in parliament, or a major media outlet, or an ability to march in the streets? What's it got?

I understand that Denmark was the only country in Europe to preserve almost all of its Jews. That seems rather not-Nazi, doesn't it? I'd be surprised if the Nazis found it a very congenial home.

My impression of the Danes is as not terribly violent...at least, not since they invaded England in the 10th Century.

The nazi movement does not have a seat in parliament, but the nazis are marching in the streets more often. They are allied with the Swedish nazis (there are far more nazis in Sweden than you can imagine - not as a pejorative term, but real self-proclaimed nazis).

The Danish nazi movement holds its member count a secret, but it is estimated they have over 1000 members.

The only reason Denmark preserved the jews is because the Danes helped them escape to Sweden (not occupied by the nazis) in 1943.

[Immanuel Can]

The Danish nazi movement holds its member count a secret, but it is estimated they have over 1000 members.

Not very many, then. Any Nazis is too many, maybe...but at least they don't look like much of a force.

The only reason Denmark preserved the jews is because the Danes helped them escape to Sweden (not occupied by the nazis) in 1943.

Yes, that's the method. But it's hardly an unfriendly thing to do, under the circumstances. After all, it looked very much like all of central Europe was going to be under the Nazis...and that's what happened, so it's probably good that they didn't try to keep their Jewish folks in the country.

[Age]

So people who want to exterminate other people should be punished by people who want to exterminate other people.

Can you SEE the dilemma here?

So what exactly do you suggest we do with the nazis?

Stop calling them "nazis" for a start, then you will stop LOOKING AT them in a particular way.

They are, after all, just human beings who LOOK AT things from a particular different perspective, just like you do.

Then, we could start encouraging them and supporting them to LOOK AT "others" from a Truly OPEN perspective in a Truly loving way, just like we NEED to do with you and your "kind". The Truth is 'we' NEED to do this with all of us, which is literally ourselves.

[Impenitent]

American democrats have been exterminating cultures since 1830

https://www.history.com/news/how-boardi ... similation

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

Just watched a horrible movie about a nazi death camp. They, the prisoners - innocent people - were brutally gassed.
It is a real story. It really did happen - more than 6 million innocent people lost their lives in nazi death camps.

I knew it already, but after watching the movie, I felt a strong urge to say this:

Cultural Relativism is wrong. There are some opinions, some beliefs, some points of view - which are just plain wrong.
They are worth less than others. National Socialism is amongst the wrong opinions.

Cultural Relativism "teach" that all opinions are equally valid. That is wrong, as is self-evident in the case of National Socialism.

Once you accept that, you know there are certain moral truths which are - true!
I do not know what is right, but I do know what is wrong. I believe that if we can sort out all wrong opinions and beliefs, ultimately we will find the right opinions and the right things to believe in. Simply by reducing the number of options.

Another lesson we can draw from this, is that all people who hold negative values - because there exists not only wrong opinions, but harmful wrong opinions - negative values - should not be allowed to exist.

National Socialists are such people. They should not be allowed to exist.

Maybe someone already challenged you on this: National Socialists were AGAINST "Cultural Relativism" in practice. That is, they believed that an assimilated mono-culture is needed that is clear and definitive. They (some?) believed that the FACT of cultural variation is a con when argued to be relatively equal because the cultures that are strictly biased, win by their devotion. They also believed that those with those strict beliefs by default bias how they promote culture by 'selling' the idea of cultural relativism while they themselves speaking of this are trying to deflect attention AWAY from their own exclusive groups. Thus, they discriminated against the Jews because they interpreted their mono-cultural strength as what has been proven to succeed at all odds. They presumed it was useless to argue against the Jews because they thought that their strength of seclusion WAS the strength needed for the Germans in a kind of 'agreed' Nationalism. As such, complete annihilation was the means to destroy those they thought thought in line with BEING "Nationalists" in direct competition.

So the idea was to promote a SINGLE MONO-CULTURE, not the diversity of cultures as though 'relatively equal'. Your assumption is backwards to the reality.

[Immanuel Can]

So the idea was to promote a SINGLE MONO-CULTURE, not the diversity of cultures as though 'relatively equal'. Your assumption is backwards to the reality.

He's got a point, though, in this particular regard: either Nazi culture is bad, or the cultures they tried to fight against or eliminate were bad. There's no way both were good, because they had directly contradictory aims and views of the good for society. If Cultural Relativism were true, we'd have to say that, say, Slavic culture or British culture, or Jewish culture were as good but no better than the culture created by the Third Reich. Are we prepared to pay that price, merely for the purpose of keeping up the appearance of Cultural Relativism?

And that's a serious question. It's a problem we really need to solve today.

Is Sharia culture as good as Western culture, but no better? Was slave culture in the South as good but no better than its contemporary Northern (emancipation) culture? Is a Polytheistic culture as good but no better than one premised on Humanism, monotheism, agnosticism or Atheism? Is Russian Communist culture equal to American Capitalist culture? And so on.

The question, then, is not "What cultures can we tolerate?" (there might well be more than one), but rather, "Which cultures are truly intolerable, truly bad?" followed by the question, "Whose cultural values shall we use in order to justify such a judgment?" But that's not a question that we can leave hanging, because if we do, the bad guys inevitably win.

[Scott Mayers]

So the idea was to promote a SINGLE MONO-CULTURE, not the diversity of cultures as though 'relatively equal'. Your assumption is backwards to the reality.

He's got a point, though, in this particular regard: either Nazi culture is bad, or the cultures they tried to fight against or eliminate were bad. There's no way both were good, because they had directly contradictory aims and views of the good for society. If Cultural Relativism were true, we'd have to say that, say, Slavic culture or British culture, or Jewish culture were as good but no better than the culture created by the Third Reich. Are we prepared to pay that price, merely for the purpose of keeping up the appearance of Cultural Relativism?

And that's a serious question. It's a problem we really need to solve today.

Is Sharia culture as good as Western culture, but no better? Was slave culture in the South as good but no better than its contemporary Northern (emancipation) culture? Is a Polytheistic culture as good but no better than one premised on Humanism, monotheism, agnosticism or Atheism? Is Russian Communist culture equal to American Capitalist culture? And so on.

The question, then, is not "What cultures can we tolerate?" (there might well be more than one), but rather, "Which cultures are truly intolerable, truly bad?" followed by the question, "Whose cultural values shall we use in order to justify such a judgment?" But that's not a question that we can leave hanging, because if we do, the bad guys inevitably win.

I'm not sure if I follow or not. I thought the OP was suggesting that the Nazis thought cultural relativism was 'good'.

I'm saying that they only assumed it probably 'equal' but were actually against it precisely because the reality they interpreted would always favor the strength of the cult. As such, they perceived it in a Social Darwinian interpretation along with Nietzsche's assertion that if god were dead, society would have to still create it. This meant that they could have interpreted us factually as being equal animals but that those animals that stick together and have a strong and powerful religion, they supersede over all others. And the choice of the powerful group, once IN power, would appear as supporting "cultural relativism" upon all others but secretly within their own groups would keep their actual intolerant belief of self-superiority based upon their devoted culture.

I think that the facts of reality of us being animals is true but that NONE of the groups with strong cultural beliefs are 'good'. The difference of approach depends upon their present power. Those without will use direct terrorism as the Holocaust. Those WITH power will not require direct annihilation of the enemy outsiders. Rather, their power will be to exploit it by indirect means that both keep their power AND to defeat others without the clear and apparent blood on their hands. I don't like either. It is obvious not to like the Nazis for their overt acts. But if they were already established and 'smart' at their process, they would have been able to be more deceptive to do the harm but make it appear as though the victims are the terrorists. ...like white-collar criminals versus street thugs. The white collar criminal can smile at you while they hurt you because they hold the big guns; the weak and relatively stupid criminals overtly fail for being obvious.

I think the best way to defeat this is to defeat any form of 'cultural' laws nor systems that define their constitution based upon religious/genetic links. I don't believe any of us are innocent because we are doomed as animals to behave as animals. All it requires for this to persist like this is to have an element of greed AND compassion. I don't know what the solution is otherwise. But history will always favor those groups, never individuals, who favor a strong religious bond, have sufficient numbers, are intelligent more often than not, and have the sufficient power base on all major economically beneficial positions and/or ownership.

[philosopher]

I'm not sure if I follow or not. I thought the OP was suggesting that the Nazis thought cultural relativism was 'good'.

I didn't say that. I wrote that cultural relativists claim that all ideologies are equally valid. Cultural Relativists are often to be found amongst the Left-wingers. Nazis are right wingers.

My topic should be viewed in light of this discussion, as the Left clearly had it wrong. I belong to the Left myself, but I do not agree with cultural relativism.

[philosopher]

Stop calling them "nazis" for a start, then you will stop LOOKING AT them in a particular way.

They are, after all, just human beings who LOOK AT things from a particular different perspective, just like you do.

Then, we could start encouraging them and supporting them to LOOK AT "others" from a Truly OPEN perspective in a Truly loving way, just like we NEED to do with you and your "kind". The Truth is 'we' NEED to do this with all of us, which is literally ourselves.

If whatever you're suggesting works, there wouldn't be anyone who look at things from that particular perspective (the nazi perspective).

But here they are anyway, so whatever you're suggesting, about encouraging them to look at others from a "truly open perspective in a loving way", is not working.

We've tried for decades. It doesn't work.

[Age]

Stop calling them "nazis" for a start, then you will stop LOOKING AT them in a particular way.

They are, after all, just human beings who LOOK AT things from a particular different perspective, just like you do.

Then, we could start encouraging them and supporting them to LOOK AT "others" from a Truly OPEN perspective in a Truly loving way, just like we NEED to do with you and your "kind". The Truth is 'we' NEED to do this with all of us, which is literally ourselves.

If whatever you're suggesting works, there wouldn't be anyone who look at things from that particular perspective (the nazi perspective).

WHY would you suggest such a thing?

Has what I have just suggested to you here, in a philosophy forum, even been heard, other than by a handful number of human beings, let alone even tried by ANY one, let alone by EVERY one, which is what would be NEEDED?

But here they are anyway, so whatever you're suggesting, about encouraging them to look at others from a "truly open perspective in a loving way", is not working.

We've tried for decades. It doesn't work.

Oh, I apologize, I did NOT know that it had been TRIED already, for decades, and that it does NOT work. But I OBVIOUSLY can see that it has NOT worked on you, if it has been TRIED on you, that is.

Maybe best we just go out now and exterminate them all, hey? But BEFORE I start exterminating "them", 'who' EXACTLY am I LOOKING FOR? 'What' EXACTLY do these "others" look like? And, 'how' will I KNOW if I am exterminating the right ones? ( I wonder if the ones doing the work for the nazi party ever ran into this dilemma?)

Anyway, HOW EXACTLY do I separate "them" from "us" again? I certainly would NOT want to exterminate, in a horrible death, one of "us" now would I?

So, 'WHAT' is it again that "they" think, which "we" do NOT?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure if I follow or not. I thought the OP was suggesting that the Nazis thought cultural relativism was 'good'.

I don't think so...I think there's a lot of irony there, but irony is difficult to detect in this medium, so maybe you're right.

Either way, though, you have at least one "unacceptable" culture: either the Nazis, or those they disliked. And that means that Cultural Relativism is not true. Some cultures really are better than others.

I think that the facts of reality of us being animals is true but that NONE of the groups with strong cultural beliefs are 'good'.

Same problem, then. You've got two classes there: cultures with strong beliefs, and cultures with weak ones. The latter, you say, are okay, but among the former, "NONE...are 'good'." Now, I would suggest that the idea that "strong" cultural beliefs are always wrong, and that it's even easy to define when they are "strong," creates a problem. But even if we accept your distinction wholesale, you've thereby rejected Cultural Relativism again.

The difference of approach depends upon their present power. Those without will use direct terrorism as the Holocaust. Those WITH power will not require direct annihilation of the enemy outsiders.

This is historically the opposite. The dominant "culture" especially if driven by a strong secular-utopian narrative, like Communism, destroys all its competitors. The gulags and re-education camps appeared under strong central governments driven by clear cultural narratives, and powered by a lot of use of force.

It is obvious not to like the Nazis for their overt acts. But if they were already established and 'smart' at their process, they would have been able to be more deceptive to do the harm but make it appear as though the victims are the terrorists.

I think that the nation that very nearly conquered all of Europe, and was only narrowly, almost miraculously stopped at the battles of Britain and Stalingrad, was very clearly not "weak." It was badly ideologically messed up, but its problem was not a lack of power or craft.

I think the best way to defeat this is to defeat any form of 'cultural' laws nor systems that define their constitution based upon religious/genetic links.

What countries did you have in mind?

The "genetic" bit might fit the Third Reich, and the "religious" bit might fit a place like...well, maybe the Islamic world? But what about the secular ideologically-driven? Secular ideologies have killed far more people than religious ones. Don't you worry at all about them?

[Scott Mayers]

@Immanuel Can,

RE: the last response first.

The "genetic" bit might fit the Third Reich, and the "religious" bit might fit a place like...well, maybe the Islamic world? But what about the secular ideologically-driven? Secular ideologies have killed far more people than religious ones. Don't you worry at all about them?

Reality is 'secular'. Religion is a tool of manipulation ONLY. While I think any stories, including from ancient scriptures, can provide means to provide help for each other, the concept of treating these concepts as though they speak of 'Nature' with the added presumption of some father-like figure or personality is intended to JUSTIFY people's behaviors when they LACK realistic satisfaction.

If you interpret the fact that religions are also 'secular' myths, than yes, ideologies based upon 'secular' reality is actually ALL that kills anywhere. The problem of cultural purists is the religious factors that impose OTHERS to respect the POWERS of those imposing them on us all. The reality of cultural relativism IS a fact unless there were ONLY one actual culture in the world. Culture is a byword for a conservation of particular people's insane belief that specific people OWN some set of behaviors that their ancestors had through the force of some religion.....Oh,....and they are conveniently selected to be ONLY the positive ones. Nevertheless, they are just means to dictate that some people are superior over others by merely being born of some race and of some 'culture' of your own.

The Nazis likely recognized the reality as I have but opted to destroy cultural relativism given they TOO thought that this is 'wrong'. That is, it is 'wrong' for those commanding one cultural rule upon the others to respect the authority of some group of people in power. When dictated that these people are the TRUE children of some God (ie Nature), it presumes they are superior.

If we look at the Soviet Union or other Communist valued societies, their reason for going against specific cults in a similar discrimination was for the same reason as the National Socialists (that the groups in question ARE National socialist groups themselves) but that they aren't competing FOR religious authority but to rid society of those people who segregate and conspire through their devotion to tribe first and foremost against all outsiders. Whether the concern is real or not is insignificant. What the Communist fail at is that their secular FUTURE ideal is itself a type of 'heaven' and that the people living today are expected to not be religious yet ironically expect to care whether their progeny are happier at their expense. This then becomes a TYPE of religion. It is the religious factor which makes all political action bad.

[Immanuel Can]

@Immanuel Can,

RE: the last response first.

The "genetic" bit might fit the Third Reich, and the "religious" bit might fit a place like...well, maybe the Islamic world? But what about the secular ideologically-driven? Secular ideologies have killed far more people than religious ones. Don't you worry at all about them?

Reality is 'secular'.

That's an assumption. It's not at all taken for granted by around 93% of the people still living on the Earth, and a higher proportion of those who have lived on it before. So it will need a showing.

Religion is a tool of manipulation ONLY.

Some is. But is all? On what basis would you include them all -- have you knowledge of them all? How would you show that they were all only "tools of manipulation"?

If you interpret the fact that religions are also 'secular' myths, than yes, ideologies based upon 'secular' reality is actually ALL that kills anywhere.

I did not say this. Religions have to own up to 7% of the wars of history. The rest are on other causes, such as economics, language, migration, resources, and so on. But by far the biggest killer of human beings has proved to be secular ideologies. They killed 148 million in the last century alone.

The reality of cultural relativism IS a fact unless there were ONLY one actual culture in the world.

No, that's not so. The existence of multiple answers to a question does not tend to the conclusion that there is no answer. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to the question, "What is 2+2?" But that certainly doesn't mean there's no right answer.

Culture is a byword for a conservation of particular people's insane belief that specific people OWN some set of behaviors that their ancestors had through the force of some religion.

So now, according to you, culture isn't "relative": it's "religious" and bad?

The Nazis likely recognized the reality as I have but opted to destroy cultural relativism given they TOO thought that this is 'wrong'. That is, it is 'wrong' for those commanding one cultural rule upon the others to respect the authority of some group of people in power. When dictated that these people are the TRUE children of some God (ie Nature), it presumes they are superior.

Okay, but you've now reversed your own argument. If the Nazis were wrong to do this, then their "culture" is not legitimate in that. That means they are not part of the "culture is relative" grouping. And there are other cultures you'll likely want to exclude, too...such as Sharia Islam, for example. They don't believe in the rights of women, homosexuals or dissenters -- even dissenters from another faction of Islam. So what do you do with such things, if culture is "relative"?

It is the religious factor which makes all political action bad.

If what you're saying is right -- that people are good, but religion is bad -- then from where did religion come? Who made religions?

It wasn't "reality," according to you, because you say "reality is secular." So who made religions?