No savage and civilised peoples; only different cultures?

[charlou]

Just for reference, from Answers.com

savage:

adj.

1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a people living in a savage state.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.

n.

1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.

tr.v., -aged, -ag·ing, -ag·es.

1. To assault ferociously.
2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.

civilisation:

1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.

[charlou]

I believe we are just different, and certainly not better. However, I do think some cultures are 'better' than others, but that's not connected with the savage/civilised polarity.

my bold

Assuming by savage/civilised polarity you mean that a culture which is technically and militarily advanced and more materially wealthy assuming, based on those criteria, they're 'better' (morally, ethically superior) than a culture which is not, or a culture that assumes superiority over another based on their own brand of religious creed and piety being superior, I agree ...

If you don't mean that, then how so, Pappa?

[Psi Wavefunction]

While some cultural practices are less pleasant to us, and perhaps to overall rational social sanity, than others, labelling them as savage vs. civilised is utterly pointless. It's as pointless as the label of good vs. evil -- carries no rational/logical value whatsoever. All cultures have their virtues and vices, regardless of what they were or speak. And fundamentally, they are all pretty much the same -- starting with the fact that ALL languages are of equal complexity and expressiveness and share fundamental features (from English to Japanese to the vast family of Papua New Guinean tribal languages -- ALL of them.) Likewise, if you strip away the costumes and rituals (even those have many common features), you realise they differ very little. Technological development may seem like a major alteration, but fundamentally... we're still biological Homo sapiens, and the brain hasn't changed that much since the dispersal of human societies...

[Psi Wavefunction]

PS: While in some aspects cultural relativism makes sense, I fucking HATE ontological relativism -- the idea that one culture's perceived reality is equal in validity to that of other cultures. My understanding of biology is more valid than that of George Ham for one simple reason -- the sheer effort I am dedicating to try to understand and learn it. That aspect of my worldview becomes more valid than his -- it's more thoroughly analysed. Same way with cultural realities -- a society that dedicated efforts to understanding the universe around them via science will have a better understanding -- and more validity to their claims -- than one that sat around with dogma. On the other hand, many of those societies have much better local knowledge than us -- simply because of how much effort they contributed to examining their immediate surroundings. In that, THEIR knowledge becomes quite valid.

I don't know if that's cultural relativism or not, but ontological relativism needs to DIE. seriously...

[charlou]

While some cultural practices are less pleasant to us, and perhaps to overall rational social sanity, than others, labelling them as savage vs. civilised is utterly pointless. It's as pointless as the label of good vs. evil -- carries no rational/logical value whatsoever. All cultures have their virtues and vices, regardless of what they were or speak. And fundamentally, they are all pretty much the same -- starting with the fact that ALL languages are of equal complexity and expressiveness and share fundamental features (from English to Japanese to the vast family of Papua New Guinean tribal languages -- ALL of them.) Likewise, if you strip away the costumes and rituals (even those have many common features), you realise they differ very little. Technological development may seem like a major alteration, but fundamentally... we're still biological Homo sapiens, and the brain hasn't changed that much since the dispersal of human societies...

If you strip away the 'costumes and rituals', sure, of course ... but in doing so you'd be making a value judgement about those 'costumes and rituals'. You'd be acknowledging that in 'costumes and rituals' lies the foundation of social/ethical behaviour and that in order to remove all social/ethical value, 'costumes and rituals' must be stripped away.

In reality, different cultures have their 'costumes and rituals', ie their set of social/ethical values, and to pretend they don't exist by saying 'if you strip it all away' would be disingenous. I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion, other than to be an observation about the obvious? Yes. Stripping away the costumes and rituals would make us all pretty much socially and ethically the same.

Not that the obvious doesn't sometimes need to be observed and acknowledged ...


Edit: Psi, before responding to this (if you're so inclined) please read on through the following posts ... I think I've worked through my thinking to the point where I better understand why you posted this ... maybe ...?

[FBM]

I live in a country where eating dog meat is traditional. Are the citizens who do this 'savages'?

I think there's a fundamental error in the assumptions upon which this statement is based. Any individual is capable of both civilized and savage acts, and most people perform some degree of both in a lifetime. The cannibals of Papua New Guinea are routinely kind, "civil" to members of their own tribe, but brutal to those from the outside who threaten them. We're not so different. We make armies and kill the enemy, tho we stop short of eating them afterwards. Usually.

Specific acts can accurately be classified savage or civilized, but not the people performing the acts, as they will go on to perform civilized acts as the situation dictates.

[charlou]

Specific acts can accurately be classified savage or civilized, but not the people performing the acts, as they will go on to perform civilized acts as the situation dictates.

I agree that it is the behaviour which should attract value judgement, not the people themselves. However, to say that different behaviours are just different (ie "only different cultures") and should not attract value judgement is wrong.

If we thought that way we would not intervene in families where there's a culture of sexual abuse of children - we wouldn't consider it ethically inferior and we would tolerate it as just a different way of behaving. But in reality we do apply value judgement to the sexual abuse of children and consider the behavior as ethically inferior, and we do expect those who behave in such a way to desist engaging in that behaviour to suit a more humane (superior) ethic and, even better, to adopt the more humane ethical philosophy themselves.

Ultimately it's not we who decide which ethic is more humane (superior), but those who we protect from the damage caused by the abuse ( ... violence ... exploitation), no matter how ignorant or callous the culture of the perpetrators. We recognise, acknowledge and empathise with the pain and suffering of the abused ( ... violated ... exploited), physical and/or psychological, and we strive to make things better on their behalf.

[FBM]

Specific acts can accurately be classified savage or civilized, but not the people performing the acts, as they will go on to perform civilized acts as the situation dictates.

I agree that it is the behaviour which should attract value judgement, not the people themselves. However, to say that different behaviours are just different (ie "only different cultures") and should not attract value judgement is wrong.

Agreed in full. I wasn't going to take it that far. It's still necessary to consider behaviors as good/bad, right/wrong, civilized/savage. Maybe I was just splitting hairs. We philosophy grads tend to do that ad nauseum sometimes.

[charlou]

Specific acts can accurately be classified savage or civilized, but not the people performing the acts, as they will go on to perform civilized acts as the situation dictates.

I agree that it is the behaviour which should attract value judgement, not the people themselves. However, to say that different behaviours are just different (ie "only different cultures") and should not attract value judgement is wrong.

Agreed in full. I wasn't going to take it that far. It's still necessary to consider behaviors as good/bad, right/wrong, civilized/savage. Maybe I was just splitting hairs. We philosophy grads tend to do that ad nauseum sometimes.

You made a good point. I don't think you were splitting hairs ... it's important to think of the behaviour as the focus of ethical standards, not the people ... and now that I'm thinking of it, I realise that's perhaps what Psi was getting at ...

...in that light, if I reconsider the statement in the opening post:

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

I would have to agree that there are no savage and civilised peoples, but only 'different' cultures ... with 'different' refering to the level of civility of behaviour in each of those cultures.

If that is what the author of the statement had in mind when they phrased the statement, then I would agree with it.

It depends what is meant by 'peoples' and 'different' ... Also, the use of word 'only' unnecessarily adds implied and biased value to the whole thing

[Hermit]

I live in a country where eating dog meat is traditional. Are the citizens who do this 'savages'?

As far as "savagery" is concerned I can't really see the difference between killing a cow, deer or pheasant for the purpose of eating it on the one hand, or a dog, cat or horse on the other. I do regard the tradition of killing of a dog in the most painful way possible (on the grounds that a dog that has been killed in such fashion tastes better) as an instance of primitivism (or savagery, if you prefer that word).

Once again, some cultures are so obviously cruel, brutal and destructive that it is totally nonsensical to pretend that no value judgements regarding different cultures can be made.

[FBM]

I live in a country where eating dog meat is traditional. Are the citizens who do this 'savages'?

As far as "savagery" is concerned I can't really see the difference between killing a cow, deer or pheasant for the purpose of eating it on the one hand, or a dog, cat or horse on the other. I do regard the tradition of killing of a dog in the most painful way possible (on the grounds that a dog that has been killed in such fashion tastes better) as an instance of primitivism (or savagery, if you prefer that word).

Once again, some cultures are so obviously cruel, brutal and destructive that it is totally nonsensical to pretend that no value judgements regarding different cultures can be made.

You touched on an important point for me. I don't see anything wrong with eating dogs, but there's a prevalent belief here that the dog has to be tortured first in order to make the meat more 'medicinal', ie, more effective for male sexual potency. The Buddhist position here is that they refuse, at least in principle if not practice, to eat dog meat for this very reason. They consider it a savage act to torture, and I wholeheartedly agree. I used to eat it quite often until I learned about how they kill the dogs. But then, we have veal and foie grois, so it wouldn't be wise for us to claim moral superiority in this respect.

[klr]

I live in a country where eating dog meat is traditional. Are the citizens who do this 'savages'?

As far as "savagery" is concerned I can't really see the difference between killing a cow, deer or pheasant for the purpose of eating it on the one hand, or a dog, cat or horse on the other. I do regard the tradition of killing of a dog in the most painful way possible (on the grounds that a dog that has been killed in such fashion tastes better) as an instance of primitivism (or savagery, if you prefer that word).

Once again, some cultures are so obviously cruel, brutal and destructive that it is totally nonsensical to pretend that no value judgements regarding different cultures can be made.

You touched on an important point for me. I don't see anything wrong with eating dogs, but there's a prevalent belief here that the dog has to be tortured first in order to make the meat more 'medicinal', ie, more effective for male sexual potency. The Buddhist position here is that they refuse, at least in principle if not practice, to eat dog meat for this very reason. They consider it a savage act to torture, and I wholeheartedly agree. I used to eat it quite often until I learned about how they kill the dogs. But then, we have veal and foie grois, so it wouldn't be wise for us to claim moral superiority in this respect.

I wouldn't eat either of those though, for those very reasons. Sometimes, "culture" is too wide and blunt a term. I presume there are plenty of Koreans who don't agree with eating dogs - or certainly the torture aspect?

[FBM]

I wouldn't eat either of those though, for those very reasons. Sometimes, "culture" is too wide and blunt a term. I presume there are plenty of Koreans who don't agree with eating dogs - or certainly the torture aspect?

Same here. As far as I know, I've never eaten veal, at least not knowingly. I've never been in the foie gras-eating crowd, so that's a given. Yes, plenty of Koreans disagree with eating dogs, and in particular torturing them, but they don't do anything about it. I don't know of any organized group that's trying to get it banned for ethical reasons. The main public objections I've heard are those who are embarrassed by it because they think it makes Korea look un-cultured. That is, since they idolize Western culture for its economic status, they try to imitate it by adopting its beliefs, values and customs. Sometimes this is good, but it also powers the recent surge in xtianity over here. No shit. Many of them think that adopting xtianity is the key to economic advancement. One leading politician was quoted not too long ago saying exactly that.

[klr]

I wouldn't eat either of those though, for those very reasons. Sometimes, "culture" is too wide and blunt a term. I presume there are plenty of Koreans who don't agree with eating dogs - or certainly the torture aspect?

Same here. As far as I know, I've never eaten veal, at least not knowingly. I've never been in the foie gras-eating crowd, so that's a given. Yes, plenty of Koreans disagree with eating dogs, and in particular torturing them, but they don't do anything about it. I don't know of any organized group that's trying to get it banned for ethical reasons. The main public objections I've heard are those who are embarrassed by it because they think it makes Korea look un-cultured. That is, since they idolize Western culture for its economic status, they try to imitate it by adopting its beliefs, values and customs. Sometimes this is good, but it also powers the recent surge in xtianity over here. No shit. Many of them think that adopting xtianity is the key to economic advancement. One leading politician was quoted not too long ago saying exactly that.

I'll see your and raise you a or two ...

[Chinaski]

I wouldn't have an issue with eating dogs, actually. Or cats. It's being coherent with a carnivorous lifestyle and perception of animals. If some animals shouldn't be eaten, you might as well not eat any.