Earlier today admist making a cake (which didn't turn out so well-- it ended up having giant pudding spots in it... don't ask) I was talking to my sister about her Theory of Knowledge class where they had been having a discussion about cultural relativism. She pointed out two theories:
- That two people from two different cultures with two different ideas can each be right within their culture within their standards of morality. Basically that the universe defines no "one correct answer". For example, when comparing cultures where eating your grandparent in cannabalistic behavior is accepted in some rural regions as a great honor to yourself and them, versus societies that find cannabalism to be an unacceptable practice, there is no universal force that would say that "eating grandparents is wrong/right". (To clarify, when I refer to universal force we're going to keep this argument away from a religious aspect and more into a scientific perspective where by the laws of nature, there is no force that defines right/wrong in this case).
- Even on something where many people had different views, there was still only one right answer. For example, it used to be where there were mixed feelings whether the world was round or flat, but the world ultimately was always round.
At first, I began to argue for #2 that there were some things that were wrong universally, like killing a person-- but then there's a question of whether killing a person is always wrong, if you're doing it for the right reasons. I'm typically drawn to the idea that doing harm upon another person is wrong (e.g. killing them) because it imposes control over that person. However, if harm is done upon the person that was harming others (e.g. the killer) then the typical standard that "killing is wrong" goes out the window because it will depend on the level of harm they imposed what should happen to them as "justice". For example, if you had a killer kill a victim, then the killer has imposed their will upon the victim (leading to the victim's death). Because the killer imposed his will upon the victim, he forfits the right to not have others' wills forced upon him (potentially leading to the killer's death). But then there's an issue of whether or not anyone deserves to die brutally. If the killer brutally murders the victim, does the killer deserve to be brutally murdered in return? Some would say yes, but there comes an issue about inhumane treatment towards others and how no matter what that person did to someone else, and no matter how much pain they "deserve" in return, there are certain boundaries of behavior that shouldn't be crossed. But that, would be a cultural perspective, what is "humane" and where the boundaries of action are.
I can't help but wonder as I sift through this scenario in my mind, if "humane" is just a relative term. That depending on what culture you come from, your definition of "humane" changes... I supposed that goes back to the defining point in #1 that two different cultures have their standards based off their own system of morality and ethics.
It makes you wonder if globally then, majority rules. Because the "majority" of the world sees killing as wrong, then it is considered wrong. This whole process for me looking up two videos.
The first is a video about an interview with Armin Meiwes who was a cannibal that ate a willing victim in Germany (view discretion advised).
The second video I found as a follow up to the first was about different cases of "body enhancement" where people have body adjustments made ranging from whiskers attached to their face, horn implants, extensive tattoos, to split reptillian tongues.
In Freaking Out video, there was an interesting quote. The man who was the artist behind the body enhancements was asked what the difference whas between plastic surgery and his body enhancement process. He said that, "plastic surgery is modifying the body towards what society considers normal. My artform is extreme individualism".
People strive for this "extreme individualism" but I've found from my observations in life that often times you'll see people who are trying to be an "outcast" or "weirdo" end up forming their own clique. Kind of like people striving to be Juggalos (a group of people some of my friends were discussing earlier when wanting to go to the Gathering of the Juggalos as a joke. This video gives you an idea about what the gathering is about if you're curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdIby6G6gsw). The Juggalos are basically a group of people trying to go for extreme behavior that wouldn't follow what is deemed proper by the majority of society.
What would happen though if the majority of people became what is considered "weird" or "unique" now? Then the standards of majority rule would flip, and what seems normal to us now would be considered the anomaly. People who then wanted to become an extreme invididualist would try to find something that is toned down since everyone might be lizard people in this universe.
All kidding aside, this all kind of followed a consistent train of thought I had earlier. It basically wraps up to where I'm trying to find the relativity behind these things. Who knew that a conversation with my sister while making an ill-conceived cake would lead to coming up with alternate universes of snake people in my head. All in a day's work.
