[AlexB138]

In many societies they mutilate the genitals of female children. In many others they carry out honor killings when a member of the family acts, as they see it, incorrectly. These are two examples of aspect of society that vary from culture to culture.

Cultural relativism is largely nonsense. Leaving a giant pit in the road for people to drive into is objectively a dangerous and selfish thing to do. Whether the expectation in the country is that people will do dangerous and selfish things doesn't change that fact, it just means the society has some huge problems.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Cultural relativism is largely nonsense

There are multiple optima on the cultural space. Americans' individualistic and Scandinavians' committee-loving systems both work well, and optimize for a complimentary set of problems. Saying "ignore the students–go to the beach," on the other hand, is an objectively worse cultural tenet than "balance everyone's needs."

[AlexB138]

Absolutely. In no way would I argue "It's what the West does, therefore it's right", and being aware of the "it's how we do it, so it's right" bias is worthwhile. There are definitely equally viable alternatives to many cultural norms. Unmarked pits in the road is not one, and I find the desire to treat all alternatives as equal, and a matter of culture, unsettling.

[heurist]

If you want to lure Feynman back to give more lectures, you roll out the red carpet the first time he comes. That's sales, not culture.

[kbutler]

Is balancing needs really the best, though?

Balancing everyone's needs tends to result in something that doesn't make anyone really happy.

This leads to a least common denominator result (you can have any color you want, as long as it's black) which is objectively worse in aggregate than "optimize for some, and let someone else optimize for the others".

[dsfyu404ed]

This is exactly the "where I draw the line (as a result of the culture in which I was raised and live) is right and everyone else is wrong" way of thinking that I was complaining about.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that where people draw the line on personal responsibility to do things to protect other people vs people's responsibility to look out for themselves varies greatly based on their culture and right and wrong is a matter of perspective and consensus.

Am I being dangerous or selfish if I don't pay a licensed plumber to connect my new gas stove or water heater? What about if I do my own electricity (the Aus vs US split on this one should be interesting)? What if I keep firearms in my home? Is it my fault if someone coming to knock on my door and annoy me trips over some kid's toys on my porch? What if my stairs are icy and they slip?

Reconciling differing opinions on public safety vs individual freedom to act (or not act) as we please is something society must do. As much as I'd love to push everyone I don't agree with off a cliff that's not an option.

[AlexB138]

Fair enough, that is a much more nuanced point than I originally took you to be making. I apologize for the misreading.

I think most of us would agree that the line is "when your negligence could likely and predictably lead to severe harm to others". As you've pointed out, there are a lot of details to decide there, and different cultures will figure those differently.

I do think that it is fair to say that leaving an unmarked pit in a road is, objectively, over the line though (as are my extreme examples). It could easily, predictably, lead to someone's death through no fault of their own, and is easily prevented. That balance between burden imposed to prevent harm and ability for individuals to protect themselves from that harm is important, I think.

I wish I had more time to mull this over and discuss with you, as I think there are a lot of interesting questions there.