All Cultures Are Not Created Equal

Let’s get this out of the way, because it has to be said.  All men are created equal – but all cultures are not.  I am tired of the ridiculous farce we perpetrate on a daily basis here in the United States, and most of the rest of western civilization.  For reasons of political correctness, we blithely contend that “one culture isn’t better than another,” and that “you can’t judge other people based on your own values.”  This being a nice clean blog, I will say only this.  Both of those statements are complete nonsense.  Of course some cultures and values are better than others.

Before I defend that statement, I want to be sure we understand what we’re talking about.  A culture is the way of life of a group of people.  Values describe those things and behaviors which are esteemed and important to the group.  Culture provides a construct for understanding the world and for interaction with other persons and the environment. Values define what will be encouraged, or what will not be permitted within the culture.  Formally or informally, we impart our culture and values to our children.  Our shared culture gives them context for understanding who they are and how they fit into the big scheme of things.  Our shared values define how they can achieve success, meaning, happiness, and honor in life.

Consider this philosophical question.  If no one set of morals is any better than any other, then why have any systematic morals at all? If no world view or set of behaviors is better than any other world view or set of behaviors, then we should not waste time teaching our children to believe certain things or to behave in certain ways.  Moral structures by definition distinguish between correct and incorrect views and behaviors; they are implicitly discriminatory.  That does not mean they are wrong.  On the contrary, if we do not affirm that some values and behaviors are better than others, then we have opened the door to all forms of abuse and injustice.

I’m sure some reading this will want to tell me that I am espousing opinion, not fact.  Perhaps that is true.  Opinion cannot be proved, and fact can.  I cannot scientifically prove that some cultures are morally superior to others because the definition of morally superior exists only in human consciousness, not in the objective reality of the world outside.  But I can reason with you, show you why I believe as I do.  If you will accept certain basic beliefs – axioms – as true, then I can use those to prove the validity of my statements about the relative moral value of cultures.  Consider whether you can agree to this premise; it is my most basic belief about morality:  “That which affirms or increases life, dignity, liberty, and joy is morally preferable to that which denies or decreases life, dignity, liberty, or joy.”  If you can accept that statement, you will be able, with me, to discern whether certain traits, behaviors, or beliefs are, or are not, positive cultural characteristics or values.  

Cultures in which people are respected and have rights are morally superior to cultures in which people are oppressed.   A culture has value in proportion to the dignity it ascribes to its members and its environment.  A culture that routinely torments or segregates or kills dissidents or those who are different, that arbitrarily assigns rights and prerogatives to some persons but not others, that distinguishes between persons who have value and dignity and others who are expendable, that permits or encourages destruction of the natural environment – that culture is morally lacking and inferior to a culture in which all persons are valued, human dignity is respected, and the natural world in which we live is not abused.  

There are three main reasons why many people illogically (and perhaps immorally) contend that all cultures and values are of equal value. 

·         In the first group are persons who have never thought this through.  They find it easier to mindlessly avoid the need for critical thinking than to get thoroughly involved in critiquing their own culture and perhaps finding the need to modify their own values.  They find it easier to deny the importance of cultural values than to accept a personal obligation to live a moral life.  They fail to affirm positive cultural characteristics and values, and that in turn makes it more likely that their culture and values will degenerate into anarchy or oppression.

·         The second group is made up of persons who fear confrontation.  They may have seen historical precedent of one group imposing its culture and values upon another.  They may have noticed how intolerance of the past resulted in wars and oppression.   They fail to realize that affirming positive cultural values such as human worth and mutual respect makes confrontation less likely. 

·         The third and final group is made up of persons who draw an unwarranted conclusion.  They believe that any form of moral absolutism (believing in higher values) necessarily implies condemnation of all others.  That is not the case.  There are many morally neutral aspects of all cultures.  For instance, there is no moral advantage to eating with a fork rather than with chopsticks.  This is a morally neutral cultural characteristic.  There is no moral advantage to singing in a major key rather than a minor key.  It is a morally neutral cultural characteristic.  A proper appreciation for human dignity and individual moral responsibility, on the other hand, is a positive cultural characteristic with moral value, which will prevent oppression rather than fuel it.   An attitude of tolerance is itself a positive cultural characteristic and value, and failure to treat others with respect, even though they are culturally different, is in and of itself a moral failure. 

You still don’t think one culture may be morally superior to another?   Consider these questions. 

·         Was apartheid in South Africa an acceptable state of affairs because it was ingrained in the South African culture? 

·         Were the values of the Nazi party morally equivalent to those of all other groups?

·         Was slavery acceptable because it was at the heart of the culture of the antebellum American South?

Now here’s a dangerous one, because it deals with current reality rather than historical example.  Is it morally defensible to force a woman to cover herself from head to toe, prevent her from driving or being in public except in the presence of a male relative, or to stone her for the crime of having been raped?  No?

Not all cultures, not all values, are morally equivalent. 

Of course that does not mean that our own culture is the most moral culture.  It is our responsibility to use moral discernment to affirm the positive in our culture, and to change that which we find morally inferior.   Even if we conclude that our culture is morally superior in some ways to another, that does not necessarily give us the right to force change upon the other.  Go back to the axiom.  Any proposed action should “affirm or increases life, dignity, liberty, and joy.”  If it does not, we have no moral justification to act.  A positive example is always permissible.

Some parting warnings:

·         Do not use these comments as justification for intolerance or arrogance.  Intolerance and arrogance are morally indefensible.  

·         Realize that most cultural differences are a matter of preference, not of morality, morally neutral, and not subject to change by any appeal to cultural imperative or morality.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “Not every difference of opinion is a difference of principle.”

·         Realize that we may discover a morally superior characteristic in another place or people, as well as in our own midst.  It is our responsibility to affirm our rightness, when it is in evidence, and to humbly accept correction, when necessary. 

Now, go forth to increase life, dignity, liberty, and joy.

Gryphem