[georgewsinger]

> Created 19 November 2001, Last Update 30 August 2011

Looks like this was created right after 9/11. It's understandable why he wrote this.

> It's considered bad form in many circles to criticize another culture's values. In addition, the social science literature contains a number of rationalizations for the "honor" mentality. One is that every value system makes sense to the people that hold it. Another is that every value system exists for a reason. Well, of course. The problem is that you can make these assertions about any value system whatsoever. Rape and genocide and embezzlement also exist for a reason, and make sense to people who think a certain way. That doesn't tell us whether the values are morally acceptable or even whether they are beneficial to those who adhere to them...So I regard it as trivially obvious that the "honor" mentality exists for a reason and makes perfect sense to the people that adhere to it. I don't doubt it for a moment. I merely claim that these values debilitate the societies that hold them.

Something this author believes that most people (in our coastal bubbles) don't: that some cultures are better than others. It's astonishing how controversial this position is even 16 years later; however, I think when this article was written it was even more politically incorrect to say than it is now.

[bryananderson]

Something this author gets that most people (of all political stripes) don’t: whether a culture is “better” than another is not even a well-formed question.

We must ask “better at what?” We must define some criteria to measure, and speak in those terms, not in ill-defined terms like “just better”.

The author speaks mostly in terms of specific consequences of different value systems. This is not the same thing as declaring a culture (usually the speaker’s own) to be “better” in some ill-defined way.

[leohutson]

I don't think the author grasps it either, especially when he uses morality as an outcome rather than just another cultural value. Assessing the quality of the outcome requires a cultural perspective itself, and even if from that cultures perspective the outcome is poor, the values that the culture would have to change may be worse.

If my culture does not accept that slavery is acceptable, but is aware that it will be wiped out by the cultures that do allow it, and chooses that fate, my culture is not inferior for doing so from my perspective.

[nradov]

It's pretty easy to objectively measure which cultures are better. In general we can just look at long-term trends in voluntary migration rates by country / state / region (or whatever geographic area aligns with a particular culture). Sure there will be some noise in the data based on natural disasters and legal restrictions but those revealed preferences give a good first approximation.

[tmnvix]

People often move not for cultural reasons, but because of resources. An example would be Nepalese migrant workers moving to Saudi Arabia - they aren't doing that for the culture.

[majewsky]

Also, voluntary migration rates (the metric that grandparent proposes) are distorted by migration policies.

[tibbetts]

Except historically migration to the US was driven by free land. And more recently by opportunities for wealth. These might be results of the non-thar culture, but they are confounded by natural resources and people are not clearly expressing a preference for the culture so much as a few correlated material benefits.

[bryananderson]

You are simply picking a measure (immigration) and saying that “being better at my measure that I picked equals being better, period.” What if I threaten all my neighboring countries with nuclear annihilation unless all their citizens move to my country, so that I will be sure to top your list of greatest countries?

Be careful what you optimize for. ;)

[BeetleB]

By that measure, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have the best culture.

[stevenwoo]

If you read the history of Columbus meeting the Arawaks on Hispaniola in his own words and the subsequent annihilation via genocide of the natives, it's hard to accept that the culture of Columbus is better.

[GCU-Empiricist]

Isn't survival, at a minimum, an instrumental value that has to support the objective values of a culture?

[AnimalMuppet]

Value at surviving, yes. Value at making war, maybe. Value at behaving morally? Not so much.

(And yes, I am aware of how fuzzy the term "morally" is here...)

[dhimes]

That's like saying Facebook is good because everybody uses it.

[fellellor]

Or Cocaine. If you try it a few times, you won't ever want to stop using.

[wavefunction]

Cocaine isn't that addictive, at least not for everyone.

It's more like cocaine is "obviously good" because millions of people around the world use it. I think that's a more apt usage of cocaine in the OP's estimation of popularity === "good."

[ghostbrainalpha]

Plenty of pedophiles migrate to Thailand for increased access to child sex trafficking, does that mean they have a superior culture?

[Chris2048]

Hmm, seems North Korea comes out on top..

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't know about that. Nobody voluntarily migrates to there.

[bobthechef]

Officially, perhaps, but our coastal bubbles clearly believe that current liberal democratic values and attitudes are superior.

[ajmurmann]

And yet we are hesitant to push out values on people from other cultures. It's a very different dilemma that I think Houellebecq portrayed fabulously in "Submission". Liberals are eager to defend other cultures whose values could hardly new more opposite. It's fascinating really and a tough position. It's admirable and pathetic at the same time and I'm not sure there is a good answer.

[taneq]

And in the same vein, Liberals show no hesitation in lambasting other people with markedly different values (such as central/southern U.S.) who they lump in as "the same culture" and so consider a valid target.

[leohutson]

Haven’t you just done the same thing to liberals?

[throwanem]

Not everyone values, or even claims to value, the idea that no culture or value system can be strictly preferable to another. From the perspective where such preferences can exist, there's nothing inconsistent about expressing one.

[specialist]

You're not wrong. Mocking country bumpkins has been our national past time, making the careers of H. L. Mencken and contemporaries.

Two major fronts in the modern culture wars started with industrialization (urbanization), and the south's remything their humiliating unconditional surrender and occupation in defense of slavery as some kind of Noble Lost Cause (victimhood).

As a proud urban progressive, I'm only too eager, happy to hail the wambulance for anyone railing against us job creators and fitness nuts. So I guess I'm no better.

[drdeca]

"outgroup" vs "fargroup" ?

[Spooky23]

Whether these places share a culture or not, they are dominated by a particular political culture that has an amplified impact due to a variety of factors.

[weberc2]

I think Scott Alexander touched on this in his "I tolerate everyone but the outgroup" post. He noted that it is relatively easy to get along with those very different from you, particularly when you're uniting against your proximal enemy. He pointed out that even the racist Nazis allied with the Japanese against other Europeans. This isn't tolerance; it's just another way to gain power in a struggle against old foes.

[leohutson]

You might say that multiculturalism is a cultural value in itself, and perhaps some might value multiculturalism more than the survival of their culture.

My view is that syncretic cultures are dominant because they are capable of absorbing other cultures and adapting to change, whereas rigid and intolerant cultures can only last as long as their particular moires are relevant.

[specialist]

Liberals in the USA were defined by their willingness to push their values, beliefs onto others. That was the New Deal. The War Machine got their profiteering and Labor got their middle class. Uniting left and right, over the objections of the isolationist (minor caucus within the Republican coalition).

That Cold War ear consensus was mooted by the fall of the USSR. A new consensus has not emerged (been forged). Nowadays, we of the left are more aware of blowback, and so are more hesitate to support Gun Boat Diplomacy.

[psychometry]

And according to the author of the article, they would be objectively superior than the other predominant culture framework in the U.S., namely the regressive authoritarianism of American conservatism.

[eric-hu]

> Rape and genocide and embezzlement also exist for a reason, and make sense to people who think a certain way.

> Something this author believes that most people (in our coastal bubbles) don't: that some cultures are better than others.

I think you can ask people in coastal bubbles about the rape and genocide cultures of various wars and embezzlement subcultures of various corporations. My money is on them saying those cultures are inferior.

[ramy_d]

Actually i would argue the opposite. Not to the extent of genocide but the lid has really blown on Hollywood's sexual harassment problem (read: rape culture). Let's not forget Uber's contribution there and of course the whole gamer gate scandal which is still fresh in the minds of the people involved in the community. Racism, classism, and authoritarianism's roaring 2017 comeback. Then there's Madoff, Exon (classic) , various kickstarter scams, Nortel (Canada represent! ) etc

I mean if you think about it just a bit, there are many examples that would indicate we actually live in those cultures. Sure they might say those cultures are inferior, but let's take a cold hard look here.

[eric-hu]

Oh but I didn't say our society's hands are clean. My money simply goes to the odds of what "cultures" most in ours might find reprehensible.

And as for those in our society who do those things? My money is on most people in the home turf saying that's not their culture, that these are bad eggs.

[ramy_d]

This is a form of Nimby: "well I don't do those things and it is reprehensible that people in my society do!". That's cute and all but what are we doing about that? Look at the Weinstein scandal - that dude was on a 37 year streak. Or Pixar's Lasseter with a history dating back 15 years. NYT quoted Rashida Jones:

  “There is so much talent at Pixar, and we remain enormous fans of their films,” they continued. “However, it is also a culture where women and people of color do not have an equal creative voice.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/business/media/john-lasse...

Racism, Sexism. _But not me, not in my backyard, those people exercise reprehensible behaviour! shame on them_. Come on.

I'm just saying: we gotta own up a bit, we live in this society too, we also make it what it is and we can all strive to make it better. I don't see bad eggs, I see bad systems that foster bad eggs. my 2c

[int_19h]

It really depends. I have noticed this same trend recently, whereby things are accepted in other cultures because judging it would be "cultural imperialism". It even got into some previously non-controversial (in liberal circles) topics, like female genital mutilation. Google for "FGM cultural imperialism" for a lot on this.

[corey_moncure]

Any discussion of morality is moot in a society where genital mutilation (of any gender) is tolerated.

[DuskStar]

Most people in the US seem to be far more tolerant of circumcision than FGM. And under many definitions, circumcision qualifies as genital mutilation...

[corey_moncure]

Yes, we agree completely!

[smnrchrds]

Ergo any discussion of morality is moot in America society? What exactly are we doing here?

[leohutson]

It's illogical to make value judgements about cultures, there is no objective way to do it. What makes one culture "better" than another? Survival? Virality? Honor? Piousness? Lawfulness? Every culture values these things differently.

Calling it politically correct shows your own failing to comprehend something outside of your own cultural frame of reference.

Notably I could make the same point about morality as the author makes about honor, as it is just another social construct.

Morality holds individuals back from getting what they want, instead they go around accumulating morality points even when no one powerful is watching. Clearly anyone who respects morality as a cultural value is PC wuss.

[sullyj3]

What you're gesturing at is that it's illogical to make value judgements, period, without a standard that your object of interest is being judged against. This fact, which is blatantly obvious once pointed out, is obscured by the shortcomings of our language.

Usually the standard is implicit, but obvious from context, for instance if we were talking about racing, we could say that a Mclaren is better than a Volkwagen, and elide that we mean "better at moving quickly around a racetrack".

It certainly makes sense to judge cultures, as long as you remember to have a standard in mind. For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s.

The fact that different cultures value different things shouldn't be a problem for discourse, as long as your interlocutors have values in common. Lack of objective truth about values shouldn't prevent one from working towards the values that they personally hold.

Relativism isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "there's no objective truth about values, so therefore every value system should be treated as equally valid". That would be an objective normative claim, and making it would be inconsistent with relativism. Relativism is just "there's no objective truth about values", and it stops there. Nothing about that prevents you from preferring your own values to those of others.

[leohutson]

> For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s.

But it might be hard to convince a 1850s white American to adopt that standard.

It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter.

Any culture that isn't similar your culture is by definition inferior when held to your cultural standards, so there is no reason to do so.

All you need to decide is if the other culture is similar enough to tolerate it.

[sullyj3]

> Any culture that isn't similar your culture is by definition inferior when held to your cultural standards, so there is no reason to do so.

Ok, so, suppose we met a culture that thought it was a good thing to burn children alive as sacrifices to Moloch. Would you say, "Hey let them do their thing, all cultural practices are equally valid", or would you say "I'm going to try to prevent this from happening, even though my belief that the practice is wrong is due to my particular cultural upbringing"?

I'm assuming the second one. So doesn't that constitute an act of holding another culture to your own cultural standards? And here, the point is to save lives.

Again, to reiterate, just because different cultures value different things, and the question of which value system is "correct" is not really coherent, does not prevent me from condemning practices from within my own cultural framework, and having good reasons to do so.

[interfixus]

> It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter

Which definition would that be?

[leohutson]

I can't respond to your other question, but the particular value we were discussing was this:

> For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s.

Shouldn't really be controversial, but America is going through a regression right now so who knows..

[interfixus]

Being Scandinavian, I do not really partake of whichever American regressions you may be thinking of.

I most certainly admire and find inspirational a lot of the values that built the US from the ground up. Hard work, frugality, dedication, diligence, and self-reliance, to name a few of the qualities that not least Northern Europeans brought to the expanding frontier.

Nor did they particularly hold with the slavery ways of the South.

Also, you may recall, there was a war fought over that issue.

[leohutson]

We'll perhaps there are some HN commenters that have those values, but I hope not!

But 1850's American culture is distasteful to me and also to sullyj3 as they say:

"it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s"

[interfixus]

What are "those values"?

[xelxebar]

Even more concretely, the terms better and worse are only capable of encoding relative positions on a linear scale.

I find it instructive to look for those scales directly--e.g. rates of violent crime, GDP, life expectancy, etc. This also makes it more natural to recognize specific problems with such linear reductions.

[leohutson]

All those scales are valued differently by different cultures.

If I show a conservative American gun crime statistics that we agree on and we agree that are caused by American gun culture, I cannot tell them that American gun culture is inferior, because I just get back "Thats the price of freedom!"

Life expectancy, "It's not the years in your life but the life in your years!"

GDP is the most hilarious one, because it's not even per-capita. Assuming that its a high median per capita GDP: "That's materialistic! We're much happier than those greedy capitalists"

[xelxebar]

This is a good point. Any particular statistic probably doesn't capture the nuances of human values. I think statistics are quite useful though, since they make it easier to differentiate between "facts we can share" and "personal values".

In my experience, a lot of disagreement gets chocked up to opinion differences when in fact it's mainly a failure to unpack beliefs into sets of values and facts.

I like to distinguish between so called "terminal values" which are things we intrisically care about, versus "intermediate values" which are things that matter to us for their external effects. For example, I think the internet is good because of the communications it facilitates. If it did the opposite, I'd probably feel oppositely as well, so my feelings on the internet are an intermediate value. On the other hand, I probably value my mom intrinsically.

Of course, we could further unpack that. Are my feelings on "facile communication" terminal or intermediate? My mental image here is of a sort of a branching set of trees, a forest, of values where the root nodes are our terminal values and the intervening nodes are our intermediate values.

I doubt that we humans actually differ all that much on terminal values. If we take this stance axiomatically, it certainly makes a lot of sense to deconstruct intermediate values into the causal links they're composed of, i.e. facts and statistics.

[kazagistar]

I'm not sure it's so easy to differentiate, since terminal values are feelings, wishy washy and prone to contradicting each other. I would say that any terminal value can become an intermediate value when you find a contradiction between it and other terminal values. Then, you either find a way to rationalize, ignore the problem, or discover a new terminal value to make the choice and downgrade one of your terminal values to an intermediate, conditional one.

Nonetheless, it's a very useful lens. Take property: many people consider it to be terminal, but I have always seen it as intermediate, a useful tool for accomplishing good things as a society, but not some sacred absolute.

[adrianN]

There are attempts to measure "happiness". They surely have their own problems, but if we could measure that relatively objectively it seems to me that "average happiness" would be a good starting point to use to compare different cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

[aaron-lebo]

It's not "illogical" to say that a culture which executes homosexuals is inferior (in that aspect) to ones that don't. You can argue about the standard, but it's straightforward and logical.

[leohutson]

I disagree, it's inferior from your cultural perspective, but some cultures clearly didn't/don't value human life the same way you do.

For instance from my perspective a culture that doesn't allow gay marriage is clearly inferior, which is straight forward and logical.

[iamthirsty]

To play devil's advocate on this subject: I spent a lot of time growing up in the South, and when I talk to a lot of friend's back home about the current climate here (e.g.: transgender bathrooms being added at work) they are disgusted and claim "our" culture is literally enabling mental illness.

But the coastal culture I live in now and am originally from doesn't view it that way. I get a lot of these culture-clashes daily and it's a really hard thing to figure out. Mainly because life is truly how you view things, and your worldview builds your reality — but how can one say one worldview is better than another, objectively? Because the observers worldview makes them biased, it's really hard to say.

[int_19h]

But why should I care about their perspective? When we judge people, we judge them based on our own system of values (morality, ethics etc - call it whatever you like). They are basically axioms that we take for granted, and that provide a starting point for the logical reasoning process. I don't see why societies should be any different in that regard.

So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ...". But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time.

[khedoros1]

>So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ..." But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time.

The problem is: it isn't always there, even when it should be. Some people actually mean "Society X is better than Y in an absolute, not relative, sense."

[int_19h]

From their perspective, it may well be - not everyone subscribes to moral relativism; it's part of those axioms.

But even then, "Based on my values ..." is implied. It just comes with an assertion that those values are universal (which, if you're a cultural relativist, you'll treat the same as well, recursively).

[leohutson]

I agree for the most, but it might be better to phrase it as this culture differs from my culture because my value X is incompatible with my value y. Because otherwise you are only making a one sided statement, I can’t assume to know what your values are.

Most political debates here for instance would be a lot shorter if people stated their cultural values upfront, rather than concealing them and arguing about something tangential.

[aaron-lebo]

It's not possible to be hard science objective in a discussion of values, but in that acknowledgment, there is a possible objectivity in finding viewpoints which allow for subjectivity. If you can't with hard objectivity say that it is correct to execute homosexuals or limit the rights of women, the most objective thing you can do is to protect people of different attributes and viewpoints. The culture which arbitrarily limits those people is operating...arbitrarily.

[7952]

Surely value judgements are not bounded by logic. And the reliance on logic in this case is a value judgement in its own right.

[neuralzen]

Sam Harris has a great book called "The Moral Landscape" on this very subject, of toxic social values and how morality relates to the purging of such values. There's also a Tedtalk he gives, which essentially explores this idea.