No missing links on Noah's ark

As a philosophy major I want to clear a few things up: Simply because people have different beliefs is a horrible reason to believe in relativism. Lets use a real world example. I don't believe in the existence of a god, but many do-- yet I'm not a relativist. It seems unrealistic to believe that god exists for some and not for others. Lets use a more grounded example.

There is a society of people who believe the earth is in fact flat. Yet I would never argue that world is flat for them and round for me-- regardless there exists a truth.

We may absolutely be wrong or right, but that doesn't play into peoples believes. Relativism is generally pretty silly and exists as more of a lazy excuse than an actual model of belief.

Another applicable example may be the practice of genital mutilation. Many "relativists" state that the practice of genital mutilation is okay because its a cultural practice, but this seems to be a slippery slope. Where does the line exist? Couldn't a relativist justify genocide as a cultural practice?

Relativism is silly.

Are those my only choices? Universalist or Relativist just they way you've framed them? Because I don't think thats quite right. I'm both--as a citizen of a modern state which people can choose to join (through immigration), as a member of a religious community that people can choose to join or leave, as a holder of all the freedoms you've outlined (until Bush takes them all away) I believe and support firmly the rights of all humans to choose freedom, democracy, individual liberty etc...

I also happen to believe as a matter of principle and historical fact that different cultures and different societies can result in the production of people who affirmatively reject many of the principles I hold dear. That is their privilige. This recognition doesn't prevent me from offering (as best I may) and encouraging individual persons (especially women, children, and young men) in those societies information and help in choosing to reject their local cultural traditions.

I'm speaking as a liberal, feminist, anthropologist here--I'm both a universalist and a relativist and neither precludes both understanding and reverence (for other cultures) and respect and insistence on individual human freedom.

aimai

Great song by Pink and The Indigo Girls, Norm! I also enjoyed the South Park post! I am currently very busy and I am grateful that OGM remains as one of my few sources to find out what's really going on! Thanks, Norm!

Relativism isn't "silly" its simply an acknowledgement that there is no priviliged position from which we can know, absolutely, that our position is morally correct and that of another group of people is morally incorrect. We can set out our moral principles and try to live as best we can by them, and we can even choose to condemn or instruct others about how ours are "better" but relativism is simply the realistic recognition that (mysteriously) out there are other socieities whose moral world views are as tightly, or even more tightly, woven with their social realities and our arguments (to the extent that they are non-violent) are not necessarily going to be persuasive.

Just to take clitoridectomy, which I personally, politically, and historically oppose it is in fact the case that pro-clitoridectomy forces have pointed out (correctly) that we in the enlightened west have permitted, encouraged, and even enforced various assaults on the individuals sexuality, sex organs, and body that are neither better nor worse, in any realistic sense, than clitoridectomy (which has its own rationale, culturally speaking). We have sterilized the retarded, experimented on orphans, used electroshock and castration on homosexuals. Our condemnation of others' use of crude surgery to repress women's sexuality has to include the fact that we have, at various times, used electroshock, lobotomy, and hysterectomy as ways of controlling women we consider out of control. The first two were done to JFK's sister, by the way.

And as for the other posters exclamation that relativism could even lead to the justification of genocide. What else is new? We can "justify" genocide, and do, without "relativism" at all. What are we to make of our moral absolutist/universalist President whose "pro life" stance against abortion doesn't give him a qualm about the meting out the death penalty? And is it not the moral universalist who supports "democracy" for everyone who is also proposing (however covertly) pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran? With Universalists like these we don't need the straw man of "relativists" to legitimize every form of corrupt, cruel, or barbaric practice. We have met the enemy (those nasty other cultures) and they are us.

aimai

I actually don't think that the most important cultural/ intellectual divide is between universalism and relativism. Relativism and multi-culturalism do exist, but they are manily a result of either liberals or conservatives going off the deep end with notions such as 'tolerance' or 'tradition', or else cultural minorities living among majorities to whom they cannot defend their way of life on terms common to both.

Western liberals and conservatives are both universalists. The biggest difference between them is the their relation to these universal ideals. For conservatives, there are no univerasal ideals apart from power, from tradition, from the tribe. You can't defend the ideals without first defending the tribe. For liberals defending the tribe, the government, the economic system are at best means to moral ends--we should guard against making them into ends-in-themselves.

A British reporter once asked Ghandi, trying to trap him, "What do you think of Western civilization?" Ghandi replied, "I think it would be a really good idea." Ghandi was a universalist who believed we should strive to achieve our ideals, rather than beating people over the head with them.

By reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time

Of course, numerous safety precautions have been taken, such as breeding only females, and intentionally retarding the dinos ability to digest amino acids.

Due to the large gaps in the DNA record, some frog DNA was used to patch the gaps. This is, however, not expected to cause any complications whatsoever.

C'mon, am I really the only one who read that sentence and immediately thought of Jurassic Park?

While I appreciate the points raised in the "Is Your Country On Crack?" post, I get angry that the argument is directed towards the American people.

It seems that this Canadian gentleman (or gentlewoman) CAN'T separate the actions of the American government with the average American person. The Conservative government in Canada is doing plenty of things so far to piss off the Liberals, but I don't apply the actions of the Conservatives to Canadians on the whole.

To Matthew

Please DO take it personally, but only to the extent of doing something to affect a positive change.

From the perspective of the rest of the "free" world, americans had a chance to show the world that they do not agree with the government that "doesn't" represent them on the whole, but they fucked it up and elected Bush anyway.

A significant percentage of americans who disagree with the president's views on war ended up getting sidetracked on gay marriage and abortion and elected a lying war monger. That there is grounds for holding the nation responsible don't you think?

universalism/relativism isn't an important divide at all. relativists are just a small group of annoying academics and third world despots.

i really don't see the point of relativism. for example, aimai says, she "personally, politically, and historically opposes" clitorectimies. she goes on to say she also opposes western practices. why qualify this opposition with something like, "but that's just me; I'm not right to oppose these practices"?

certainly there's no practical point. constantly qualifying our moral judgments with a relativist clause would make social deliberation very difficult. people would be very differently motivated if moral claims about justice, for example, were seen as on all fours with other mere preferences like my personal desire to watch Jerry Springer. (notice that if the relativist acknowledges any distinction in the importance of these two attitudes--the attitude towards injustice vs. the attitude towards jerry springer--she is already moving away from relativism to acknowledge some kind of "absolute" (poor choice of terms, but oh well) importance.)

is there then a theoretical reason to be a relativist? maybe. but the considerations advanced by aimai (which are pretty representative, i think) aren't very convincing:

"relativism is simply the realistic recognition that (mysteriously) out there are other socieities whose moral world views are as tightly, or even more tightly, woven with their social realities and our arguments (to the extent that they are non-violent) are not necessarily going to be persuasive."

there are also people whose non-moral world views are radically different from ours, but this doesn't imply that our worldview isn't true. a lot of americans don't believe in evolution for example. so what? they're wrong. we still know that evolutionary theory is true. and so it could be with moral truths.

an interesting sociological datum: relativists always point out that, non-europeans have different moral outlooks and sometimes seem willing to take these outlooks seriously (for argumentative purposes) no matter how evil (e.g., clitorectimy). i have yet to hear a relativist say, 'no, genocide isn't wrong--that's just out opinion, the nazis disagreed'.

Don't get worked up by andrew anthony's u/non u bollocks. Its a false frame from an idiot of a writer. for proof search his other articles, really he's a moron.

Hi asinineAmerican, I read that snipper and Jurrasic Park did come to mind.

I was on the side of Jeff Godblum, who felt that human beings should not play God by creating and rearing dinosaurs when the very nature of Earth's surroundings have long since changed beyond that time. The idea that the Creator of Jursassic Park can stop them from procreating, make them live in defined spces waas truly hubris.

However, it does show that the impossibility of human beings living alongside dinosaurs that some Christians preached about.

Dinosars require boundless spaces to feed and range. Compare that to the propsenssity of human beings to settle down and lay claims to fixed pieces of land.

Putting them together is to give a prehistoric version of World wars.

Man verses dinosaur.

3 ton verses 1/4 of a ton

By reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts. The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells.

There are more articles pertaining to this discovery linked to on Joe Thornton's web page.