[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]

Based on which values though? I don’t think they should go unstated, because if I don’t hold the same values then arguments holds no water with me.

A particularly annoying one is when people lie about their values or worse claim that their argument doesn’t stem from their values (are they embarrassed?), it’s purely “rational” and anyone who doesn’t agree is pc virtue-signalling cuck who is blind to reality.

[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.