So that means, I suppose, that it was all right for the Nazis to murder six million Jews (in the context of German society at that time)?

Well I would say that the the German society, before the rise of Hitler, had very similar social norms with all the other societies, so in that way they were part of all the other societies-- Europe etc. were in reality one big society because of the similarity in social norms, so when Germany broke of and violated the social norms of that society, they were committing a gross crime.

I am suggesting the possibility of vast and impenetrable differences between different societies, I still think there can be very similar societies as well (As most societies are).

I think our psychology (if that is what you mean by biology) and instincts do lead to certain social norms being established, but it is only after those norms have been established right and wrong come into play.

I do not accept a minority view can trump a majority view. When society was aimed at the happiness of the elite, that changed because soon that view became the view of the minority and the majority challenged that view. Society changed. Also, all that change occured within the context of a single society in the middle of change, which is very different from saying that a single explorer's view can trump those of the majority who are in a different society just because he has guns and they don't.

To answer your question, no, because no matter if a culture's values allows them to interfere with another culture, that value still doesn't mean anything to that other culture, it's still meaningless. The value itself is self contradictory. Notice that I still think one can disagree and argue against certain values, I just do not think you can stomp into another culture and change it forcibly.

True, facts are not subjective, but the ability to see those facts are, and whether people can or can not see those facts depends largely, I think, on the morals one is brought up with.

I don't think it's wrong to want to change values in other cultures, I think it's wrong to go and change those values forcibly, without the other culture having a say. You can argue against values, but you can't force your values upon another culture.

I would extend that to all of humanity. If you don't mind saying that all the countries involved in WWII were part of one big culture, then why not extend that to all the more tribal people, on the basis of their shared humanity?




This sounds to me like you are saying that if an explorer came across an alien society, he should not interfere. I don't think humanity is that different from each other, if you look up a list of things that are consistent across all cultures you will find 100's of things.
Do you object to slavery in the US? The civil war was a pretty clear example of the northern culture forcibly changing the southern culture.

How is it self contradictory? I don't follow your train of thought here.

Yes, which is why some cultures are better than others.

We generally do follow the policy of self determination. But often there is force being used within a culture.


Essentially, I think you are drawing lines arbitrarily. Each person has a different idea about how things should be done, each country has dozens of cultures, each culture is divided on certain issues. Presidents are elected with 51% vs 49%. The police enforce laws that millions disagree with.

Your point of emphasis seems to be that modern, developed countries should not use force against primitive, native tribes. But the idea of the noble savage is misguided, and the dividing line is artificial. It is hard to understand and judge other cultures, but there are times when we can (based off the knowledge of our shared humanity--that is what makes it knowable). And in some cases force is the best way to go.

**********************
Well, the above is what I wrote before, but aren't you actually arguing for pacifism rather than cultural or moral relativism? I missed that before, sorry.

Think of this:

An explorer encounters a society completely cut of from the rest of the world. In his opinion, they are primitive. He witnesses a woman being burnt for being raped.

Does he have the right to intervene?

I will wait until someone states an opinion and why he/she thinks this before explaining anything in detail.

Well I would say that the the German society, before the rise of Hitler, had very similar social norms with all the other societies, so in that way they were part of all the other societies-- Europe etc. were in reality one big society because of the similarity in social norms, so when Germany broke of and violated the social norms of that society, they were committing a gross crime.

Right and wrong are based on social norms. Therefore, from the society being encountered's point of view, burning the woman is the right thing to do, it is their social norm (sorry, perhaps I did not make this clear). It is only from the explorer's view that what they are doing is wrong, and since there is no one else from his society, this view is meaningless. As the opinion only has meaning in the context of his society, his beliefs do not apply to those not from his society.

Does he have the right, or would he be right, to intervene?

Think of this:

An explorer encounters a society completely cut of from the rest of the world. In his opinion, they are primitive. He witnesses a woman being burnt for being raped.

Does he have the right to intervene?