Particularist ethics against universal morals
Classically, the debate about morality in light of the Hegelian distinction does not match with Plato’s critique. While the moralistic universalisation defines all to adhere to a singular model not every culture is susceptible to such agonising nor coercion.
Ethical structure pertain to the cultural layout. The cultural-linguistic development points to an ethnocentric moral compass. Diversifying the recognisable behavioural inspections. A world of difference over interactive sensibilities. For many this is dangerous. Ethnocentrism inspires discriminatory policies and erratic insults. It divides humanity into tribalistic scores seeking higher status. A barbaric squid game to prevail. Its relativistic underpinnings devalue the interactive element as there is no correct model. It is all impulsively swung by an egotistical framework. Either the differences will consume and force a battle to decide the all encompassing ethic or isolation will breed disinterest. The hierarchical construction of personal over other’s worldviews will culminate in disastrous relations and potential tragedy.
Their apparent divide between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism hinges on the point of origin or perspective: either judging a culture by another’s standards or by its standards. One is ideological the other anthropological. The former paints a superiority complex while the latter paints a humble acceptance. While the former can be applied to the logical ethical and political, what about the latter? For the cultural relativist the acceptance of other cultures can either be the respect insofar of a derisive consequence or respect to the point of silence. Such an example would be the modesty of religious women. Should democracies battle to stop such oppressive traditions or permit the religious laws to endure. To be a liberator or an accessory. Seeking to do some good by protesting the evil or remaining silent in the name of some protectionist scheme of the evil.
For the liberal mind it is obvious to assist women out of these cages. Even women who do not ask for help they really do wish for it. They either are too scared or too hypnotised to recognise the abuse they are under. With enough freedom they will breech the religious simulation and realise their true liberty in deciding their wardrobe. The opposite can be true as well. The need to please every culture. Who knows what is truly genuine. The objective metrics brought by religion and secularism neither prove the correct model. What is better democracy or communism. Half a century of advocating at the behest of propaganda and suppression of diverse acceptance. Disagreement does not mean heresy. The liberal mind also must contest with the intersectional and cultural context that they are attacking. All cultures are to be respected and their sacred traditions upheld. Silence in relation to these damning beliefs. Their liberation is not sought nor praised. It is a selfish wish to force liberate and derail their traditions for a utopian vision that is monolithic in perspective.
Both sides seem to promote a lucid vision of the dichotomy. Contemporary relativists find themselves in a bind. On the one hand they are protestors to attack but also protesters to defend. So while they are big on women wearing whatever they want on their bodies they are also okay with cultures compelling women on what they must be wearing. The irony is grim in the war on attrition. Trying to have it both ways in a clear contradiction of values. There is a difference between respecting a culture and disagreeing with its policies but that is not the reality. The dialectic is advocated. The liberator and suppresser in the same sentence. It is not only a conflict of values but a lack of values. Choose a side and honour it. Protest or shut up. Do not switch teams to cater to fancy or seem nice, it’s unbecoming and untrustworthy. Its a fraudulent stance whereby one makes assertions without actually backing them up. You don’t actually care you just want to preach. It isn’t a question of who is in the right but that a specified position is taken. The silent position is a fair proposal. Ignorance is unpopular but bold and honest. Following a rigid philosophical frame, it may be more logical than the emotional overload.
The value of the cultural relativist must be in the hands of the respect of subjective ethics. The backhanded protesting does not present any substantive perspective nor genuine basis for living life. In theory it marks the ethnocentric model. The relativist does not claim superiority but he does claim his own ethic. Relativist activists in the name of some fake compromise are undermining their relativism. Failing to choose a side of the equation mars any depiction of a potential structure. Relativism acknowledges plurality not dualism. It is for the individual to assume a point of view verified by absent objectivity. Yet there are still rules to this ideal. Even the most creative cannot assume a contradiction. The equation must fit. Fighting for and against female modesty is not a nuanced perspective, it is absurd. It isn’t even a perspective as there is no delta; it is self defeating. The solution is define terms to which females or to which extent. Dissecting the terminological significance will lead to confusion and unequal results. Thus the message is a hoax intended to theoretically make noise without practically solving anything.
As mentioned this is entirely different from the regular relativist. Such an individual unlike activists doesn’t push agendas. Permits others to do as they please while he does his routine. The one golden rule is to agree on interactive fundamentals. If two different religions lived in the jungle they would not encroach on each other’s land but would develop trade rules to facilitate relationships. Isolation does not mean radio silence, it just means staying out of internal business. If it does not affect me then there is no interference. The relativist feels the female modesty is a little overwhelming and thus does not wish to employ the norm in their country but another’s is okay. While this would ideally work for the activist, the activist is a universalist and even in their own society they fail to apply the correct ideals. There is an exception in one’s own camp that is relented. The relativist is a particularist he does not acknowledge the supremacy of any culture but his own is his legacy. He advances his ethic for his community and stays out of outside cultural issues. It is not a matter of being right, it is a matter of following through on furthering communal ideology. Propelling personal ideals to the future.
In the academic definition the ethnocentrism is an egotistical universalist and the cultural relativist a respectful bookworm. This definition displaces the obvious symmetry in reality. The latter himself is an ethnocentrist. By placing one’s own identity before others no matter the morale, demonstrates a mild but conceivable superiority complex. It is not a matter of metaphysical veracity but realistic implementation. The relativist does not shun others but he does put his heritage froward. He does not attempt to absorb or convert to some other identity. His identity is his own from his legacy to his craft. His ideals are his own, whether individually or communally. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of action. Respecting other cultures does not mean to disparage one’s own. It is to own up to ignorance. Who knows which one is better but this one is mine. This one is special. These ideas are important to me. To fight for one’s beliefs doesn’t mean that others are wrong objectively even if so subjectively. Meaning one won’t adopt for his culture but appeased if for another culture. The hint of silence is to personally assert familiarity in the face of questioning.
The crime of enthnocentric priority is divisible by the universal qualms. If my rules are the best then everyone should follow them. Yet such argumentation is flawed. The limit of ideals is one’s community. The global enterprise has little weight in ensuring uniformity. What is good is what affects me. The only way others would inflict their ideology on me is if there are universalists as well. The nationalist paradigm is lost in the heat of uniform salvation. A hellenistic origin of spreading one’s beliefs on others. Prohibiting cultural beliefs at the expense of naivety. Hellenist greeks and Romans prohibited Jews from studying Torah. To destroy the Jewish culture for a new improved one. The whole motto is the new is the renovated old. Discard the old for the new or else. Christianity and Islam followed suit in many ways. The only way to salvation was through accepting the dogmatic aspects. This wasn’t the burden of believers but non-believers. Since non-believers were the poison of the world. The stigma of ethnocentrism emerges from ideological universalism. Without posing coercive conquests there is no real offence.
Disagreements are bound to occur but how do those reciprocate? How is difference acknowledged? The idea of diversity so embedded in democratic idealism failed to be upheld till this day. All men are created equal but are not treated equally. Slavery and Jim Crow plagued the land of the free for half its existence. Diversity exists in the abstract. It is a nice idea, recommended but not accepted by Americans. Stereotypes and political impasses derail any common synthesis. There is legal particularism that permits religions to act in their own right but such differences culturally polarises any compromise. The melting pot has fragmented into a dualistic model that seeks to prevail in its dialectical stalemate. Trying to coexist in one country, even in one state. With each side promoting their perspective at the expense of another. The cultural paradigm itself is capitalism. Issues with said system are repelled by the foundational structure. Diversity is acceptable insofar as it does not annoy the elites. Free speech is selective speech. Censorship and punishment defraud the principle. Thus even the communal centrality is problematic in its ideological prose.
Though such a problem rests on the ideological matrix. The communal prowess is bound not by ideas but events. The christian polemic against carnal Judaism is its greatest strength. Biological markers of tribalism exclude but it also possesses the possibility of plurality. The community cannot be fragmented because blood cannot be divisible. It is a staple of fact that the in-group is related. From the relation any type of theory can manifest. In the nationalist paradigm it is possible to relinquish the ideological aura for a property aura. Meaning the geographical terrain and spatial proximity ensures a community. What garners one’s legitimacy is not whether or not they subscribe to the ideology but whether they reside in the state. If they pay taxes and logistically commit to the community. The melting pot is solved by a logistical communal effort. The economic leverage over the political mania solidifies the connectivity. Values of contributing for the overall whole may extrapolate differently but the proximity in affording a trade-based continuity decries the ideological dogmatism. The mayhem that favours the war-torn efforts is at least grounded in logistical conformity.
Yet this is not always the case. Given the economic divide between the socialists and the capitalists. Spatial proximity can be bordered off. People can draw lines in the sand dividing the land. The emergence of borders highlights the separation of cultures. Thus the inquiry is what is the basis of the culture? Where does one line end and the other begin? The shared history and mythos propagate a united vision of cultural identity. Beyond the ideological markers that persist in the state there is a foundation that cannot be overruled. To take America as a test case briefly. America as a democracy has established the equality of races, religions and genders even if imperfectly. Yet its current Neo-McCarthyism objects to socialist and communist propaganda. In this light, if the latter win does America cease? What makes America, America besides the land mass? Freedom is central in the founder’s bill of rights. The constitution is central. None of these are political nor economic. They are ideological but are the basic mythos that creates America. As long as individual liberties are in play America will retain its Americanness with all of the pop culture hot dog feasting joy.
A bedrock of values is necessary to bind a community. In America it is the constitution and bill of rights as a whole that creates America. Before the fall of Soviet Russia, Ukraine was Russian. Before the revolution the US was British. The fall of empires disconnecting from the cultural hub cultivates new ideological centres. Colonists against the British monarchical prowess sought an equal society with new order. The same can be said of the Soviets after the fall of the Russian Empire. As Empires conquer new land especially in the case of The USSR versus Ancient Persia the difference in ideological penetration encompasses the nature of the reign. Soviets expanded their territory binding with military might and ideological monism. Placing puppet governments or emerging linear political views (though Tito a communist leader defected successfully from Russia). Finally a treaty to unite the front into the Eastern Bloc. Though this imperial method does not necessitate a unification of values or culture. The communist system was solely political and failed in the cultural setting such that after the fall of the Soviets, these countries maintained their special protocols. Given they were Czech beforehand they would be Czech afterwards as well.
This imperial mantra differs heavily from the Persian conquest since there was little ideological manifestation. Persia conquered but did not mix hegemony with ideology where Soviets and really all other modern empires have attempted. Even America’s veiled conquest attempts to place democratic leaders in other countries for their own interest. They do not conquer the country but there are “puppet” leader and a military presence. Though the question of an American Empire is intriguing, if it is indeed so, it is one like no other in history. This example clearly demonstrates the capability of shedding the imperial might and regaining the centralised culture without any imperial stench. Ukrainian culture may have similarities to Russia given their proximity but they are different and value differently. Defecting and isolating to make a new place is clearly a division of cultural values. The point of independence is to preach one’s personal values. This can be said of any colonised nation. Even take Ireland or Scotland. Though they are a part of the UK, they have different histories and values that divide them. Different nationalistic desires to govern their own way.
Given the historical agencies, there is an obvious division amongst countrymen. Legacies and immigrants possess different experiences and perspective on their country. To be patriotic is to fight and die for the cause. While many surface level factors are brought to authenticate the patriot, they fall under a tough rubric. Language, appearance, food. Some places may have multiple options. America is the melting pot that unites many of these varieties. Is a Polish Jewish immigrant fleeing from Nazi Germany less American because he does not enjoy hotdogs nor does he speak English? Of course not. Though in time he will accustom himself to the customs of the land, to be American is to be well versed and more. Not everyone is a soldier not everyone enjoys the political preference. What makes America or any country for that matter relevant is to its citizenry. Do the people believe in its existence? Do they uphold the kernel of its foundation? It is through the accustomed routine: the language, the hotdogs and the freedom that symbolise the American. A tourist may speak English and enjoy hotdogs but his clear discomfort and out of place reaction doubles down on his un-Americanness.
Borders divide cultures allowing them to promote their agendas in their countries. The enlightenment and universal democratisation has attempted to undermine this subjectivity. Treaties in the past meant that an allied nation would come to the aid of the other. Even with the Nazis, it was less about the Jewish genocide and more about aiding the allies. Post-WWII, the Cold War was a battle of ideology. Would communism spread successfully or would democracy prevail. Invading communist countries to cease their operation for democratic leadership (not always). The war in Afghanistan also became ideological in ending terrorism with military might and democratic leadership. In the past have century, countries have been infected with dangerous toxins and only the formally imperial countries could save them. They had the antidote: democracy and NATO military. Raise your culture in light of NATO’s regulations. A watchdog preventing any out of character behaviour. Such schemes are against the relativist’s doctrine. While the people themselves may claim to not judge, the country for its own interest does.
A strong ethnoecentric ideology is pandered to the rest of the world. While the western world is wired to place democracy at the foundation of society it is the complete opposite of the relativist policy. Democracy is an amazing system but it is not the west’s job to be judge, jury and executioner. Despite the anti-war Vietnam protests, the anti-war dream in the 2010s was quieted given the propaganda of self defence. The relativist policy remains an insular bubble. To not get involved with other countries but many transactional investments have strings attached. America’s might can will others to conform to their standards. It is Russia and China that scare her. She cannot play the same bulldozer technique. Thus, both have kept to their regimes and ideology. to an extent it has little to do with other countries seeking the light and more to do with what America can provide.
Still, democracy in many of these countries emerges from the people. People want freedom. People want independence. Is that to say that the Chinese or Russian people are suppressed or fools for not wanting a different government? They may be hostages of their government. Democracy liberates and that is the job to give democracy so others can cultivate their legacies on their own terms not repressed by a dictatorship. While it is noble of the US, it isn’t without recourse. America does present its golden offer and grand influence but life isn’t always better on the other side; Hollywood is an illusion and there are enough people in San Francisco whose American Dream failed them. The question is much more how much is American interventionism producing more harm across the world either through its deceptive paradise or grimacing the foreigners. Maybe it is time America recedes to its isolation days of the ninetieth century. To follow FDR’s example to not enter WWII sunk in isolation to aid the struggling citizenry through the crisis. Not perfect but a start.
In the nationalistic formula we still find ourselves in today. States are engraved though there is always potential for succession and new establishment. For now it is imperative for the relativist to be honest and remain vigilant in his mission. Those early relativists are the same fools who grew international wings to extend the universalisation of old. Holding onto the relativist dream requires looking internally. To stop making deals with problems aboard and deal with the problems at home. Sufficient awareness and credible resources to the causes. To funnel money into programs to help Americans instead of dropping it off in Ukraine. Millions of dollars to protect Americans is given away. Where is the loyalty, fidelity and responsibility?
The political elite in this case are un-American. Their allegiance to another nation’s woes over their own demonstrates their ill-fated concern for their own citizenry. Elected to screw over their people. They may live in America and swear to protect America, but they are not serving Americans which makes them un-American. The only way to resolve this is if the ethnic chamber is prioritised. It is irrelevant what one thinks of other nations, only that their own precedes. Ethnocentrism is laced with the dubious universalism. It is time to cut that out and place the collective self before the rest of the world. To follow the nation in its recovery and restoration to hold its values and principles tightly.
No comments:
Post a Comment