PocketMatrix

For the uninitiated, cultural relativism is defined by Dictionary.com as follows:

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Basically, those adhering to this doctrine believe that we have no right to tell Saddam Hussein he's wrong for gassing Kurds. The logic? Well, he believes it's right, and we're just as human as him, so who's to say he's wrong? etc.

Is there anyone here who believes in this doctrine? Can anyone justify it? I cannot.

The reason I bring it up is cuz I think it's an interesting (though wrong) philosiphy. It came up in this class I'm taking, Modern American Foreign Policy (awesome class) and someone actually believed in this load of hogwash. So, anyone up for some discussion?

I agree with it to an extent. Not to the fact that people are killed, but in such a way that like we can't tell a country they are wrong for not being a Democracy and Capitalists.

So that means we can kill Saddam and no one can say that we're wrong for wanting to do so, according the the philosophy. As long as we don't say he's wrong about something we're good and no one can question us.

This is the humanist's form of anarchy. I love it!

Okay, Trae, so as long as no one dies, you're cool with it?

How about Fascism? As long a dictator doesn't kill anyone, he can repress human and civil rights as much as he wants, and we wouldn't be able to tell him he's wrong? What if he ruins the economy? Cuts off trade relations with the US and other important nations?

Would he still be 'right' in his actions?