Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world's most toxic value system (2001)

uwgb.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 209 posts

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#91

Post by int_19h »

eric-hu wrote: post #11
georgewsinger wrote: post #3

> 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 eve…

> 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 tho…

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.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#92

Post by int_19h »

leohutson wrote: post #31
aaron-lebo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#93

Post by int_19h »

exelius wrote: post #42
orbitur wrote: post #33

This takes a strange detour towards the end. > Even more disturbing is a rise in a mean-spirited resistance to any kind of honors for Confederate soldiers. Seems a bit contradictory to insist that we honor immoral people for the sake of... I'm actually not sure how the author got here. Especially after the bit about not accepting responsibility. The Confederacy was a moral failing, and the best way to take responsibi…

While the reasons behind the war and its intended results can certainly be called immoral, I don’t think we can apply the same label to enlisted / conscripted soldiers. Most of those guys didn’t join up to protect slavery but rather their homes; and many didn’t have a choice about fighting at all. Agree that slavery was a moral failing; but the cause of the war was economic — the main reason people were pro-slavery w…

The problem with the "they weren't fighting for slavery" narrative is that the leaders of the Confederacy laid out their cause clearly and unambiguously very early on - the state declarations of secession, the Cornerstone Speech etc - and slavery featured very prominently in them all. It's not like those documents and speeches were hidden from the public eye, either. So anyone who volunteered knew exactly what they were fighting for.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#94

Post by darawk »

I super hard agree with the primary point of this article. Honor culture is unbelievably toxic. However, i'd like to quibble with this:

> When a concept has a label that is diametrically opposed to the normal sense of the term, it's the wrong label. This has nothing to do with value judgment (although my value judgment is clearly stated), it is simply a matter of using words accurately. If you translate a foreign word as "red," and notice that people always use it when describing grass, it's obvious that your translation is faulty. If you translate a foreign word as "honor" and find it often used to describe dishonorable acts, it's equally obvious that your translation is faulty.

The author doesn't seem to understand abstraction. The fact that the instances of 'honorable acts' in a given culture differ does not negate the shared meaning. The thing 'honor' refers to is not the definition of the particular acts, but the role this abstract concept fulfills in a society. Honor is the thing that, once impugned, requires retribution to regain. Honor is the thing that bleeds down a family tree for generations. Honor is the thing without which there is shame. Which acts credit and discredit this thing called honor are irrelevant to the definition of the term.

In certain street gangs in the US it is honorable to wear certain colors and not others. In certain sects of Islam it is dishonorable for your wife's face to be seen by other men. These two seemingly unrelated acts fulfill recognizably similar roles in their respective cultures. To not allow language to recognize this shared heritage is to discredit the very notion of abstraction, and to deny the genuine intellectual and social roots of the very concept the author is quite nicely articulating.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#95

Post by khedoros1 »

interfixus wrote: post #71
leohutson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

What are "those values"?

There was an assumption of the inequality of the races and acceptance of slavery on that basis. That's probably what was meant by "those values".

For the regressions, and continuing with my previous assumption: President Trump has been soft on some of the white supremacist groups, for example, being slow to disavow the support of those groups' leaders. This has emboldened some racists to be bolder. Previously, in places like California, racism almost seemed like a thing of a bygone era (at least, it wasn't as overt).

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#96

Post by khedoros1 »

int_19h wrote: post #92
leohutson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 "soci…

>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."

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#97

Post by leohutson »

interfixus wrote: post #84
leohutson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

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 w…

How is that relevant to what was being discussed earlier in the thread? It was merely an example.

That you share some values with a historical culture is hardly important information, if you look hard enough you can probably find something you like in all cultures, historical and present day.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#98

Post by interfixus »

leohutson wrote: post #97
interfixus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

How is that relevant to what was being discussed earlier in the thread? It was merely an example. That you share some values with a historical culture is hardly important information, if you look hard enough you can probably find something you like in all cultures, historical and present day.

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

Weak tautology, then. And a squishy definition. 1850s white Americans' culture by and large is not distasteful to me.

You may of course invoke 'modern' and a No True Scotsman line of argument.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#99

Post by leohutson »

int_19h wrote: post #92
leohutson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 "soci…

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.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#100

Post by xelxebar »

leohutson wrote: post #61
xelxebar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 i…

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.

Post reply on HN