In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

> If that's what's actually meant by the phrase 'all cultures are equal' (and I've never heard of anyone presenting it that way) then it should be stated as such because then we can work toward identifying those metrics so we can objectively improve our own culture.

I agree with you about "all cultures are equal" being a hard statement to defend if you take it to literally and nihilistically to mean that there is no objective way to measure good or bad. Not a lot of people are that nihilistic. Most people believe in some degree of moral relativity and some degree of moral absolutism. It's hard.

I don't have a rigorous proof for my feelings towards this, but I feel like the goal shouldn't be to reduce CULTURE down to KPIs. I don't think we should be putting culture on a scale and asking how it effects the economy because I think it's the kind of bad social science that people on HN usually detest. This is a good letter from one of Wax's critics, posted to Heterodox Academy:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/03/i-dont-care-if-amy-w...

Lots of welfare, which gets back to the original point about marriage vs. single parents.

This is the core premise of the article, the conclusion, of course, being 'no'. Unfortunately, it does not accurately deal with the fairly clear subtext being delivered by Ms. Wax.

> "In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian about the op-ed, Wax was quoted as saying that “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans,” because, in the phrasing of the DP article’s author, “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.” … [they then affirm Wax’s right to express her opinions, then say:] We categorically reject Wax’s claims."

This, in particular, is striking. Why is 'being ruled by white Europeans' the draw to migrants over, say, the relative wealth of the west in the aggregate? France and Germany certainly offer troves of opportunity, but is Greece really more of a destination for economic migrants than, say, Singapore? Would India's quasi-british culture provide a counter-example when compared with China's?

The lack of any of these comparative examinations leads us immediately to question the argument provided. Ms. Wax doesn't even make case compelling to show that it was the 1950s script itself, rather than other causes before she jumps into discussing the superiority of the white european ruling establishment. Could it be that America's economic rivals had just been bombed to ash which led to an influx of capital to the country during an era where unions had clout? Nah, its just the fact that it was ruled by white europeans (/s).

Give me a break.