At what point (if any) can we distill cultural factors for why groups act a certain way versus socio-economic or political factors? — schopenhauer1

What do you mean by culture? On my view economics and politics are downstream of culture, and so it is difficult to separate such things from culture.

Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects, whether you agree with them or not? — schopenhauer1

I think one of our most entrenched difficulties is our inability to say that other people are (objectively) wrong, and this is most obvious when it comes to cultural considerations. If you can't objectively oppose a culture then in the end you probably can't objectively oppose anything.

I rather have it an investigation on when one can reasonably blame a "cultural" trait, if at all for a negative aspect of social living. — schopenhauer1

I want to say that culture is something like societal habit, or some subset of societal habit.

What things are you wanting to assign blame for? I think that would preclude certain versions of this, and allow others, depending on which.

I don't think any specific behaviour can be excused by/ blamed on culture.

What do you mean by culture? On my view economics and politics are downstream of culture, and so it is difficult to separate such things from culture. — Leontiskos

I mean a classic example here is gang culture in the US. This is tied with so many things- racial oppression, socio-economic oppression, and cultural aspects. One side of the debate regarding gang culture is that it is a cultural problems. A prominent conservative historian, Thomas Sowell, traces it back to Southern white redneck culture, that ultimately gets traced back to England. Nonetheless, he seems to see it as more of a cultural circumstance more than socio-economic. Others would say that it derives from socio-economic circumstances of simply being poor. If you are poor, and discriminated, these are the activities that a subgroup might tend towards..

There are dozens of other examples where things get entangled. Let's say you have a subgroup that allows their kids to essentially run amok in a neighborhood.. They let 3 year olds run in the street, but that is part of their culture.. But let's say in the major culture it would be frowned upon to let a three year old run back and forth on a street. This is just a micro-example.. Or how about how animals should be raised. In some cultures dogs run around the village getting fed by anyone who has food and water. They might get injured or hurt, but this is less a consideration as having a dog kept locked in a certain area for safety reasons would be odd to them. However pet lovers in many countries might be appalled or at least not happy with this free-for-all arrangement. But then others would chime in and say that "Such and such economic reason means this is why the dogs roam free in those societies". But this doesn't answer if it is moral, or it at least tacitly says it is relative.. as when it is brought to another society that has other values regarding dog safety it becomes a problem and a clash of cultures. But recognizing the clash and then making a moral judgement are two different things. Many might be afraid to condemn the latter.

I mean a classic example here is gang culture in the US. This is tied with so many things- racial oppression, socio-economic oppression, and cultural aspects. One side of the debate regarding gang culture is that it is a cultural problems. A prominent conservative historian, Thomas Sowell, traces it back to Southern white redneck culture, that ultimately gets traced back to England. Nonetheless, he seems to see it as more of a cultural circumstance more than socio-economic. Others would say that it derives from socio-economic circumstances of simply being poor. If you are poor, and discriminated, these are the activities that a subgroup might tend towards.. — schopenhauer1

Okay, good. Gangs might be a consequence of culture going back to "Southern white Redneck culture," or they could be a consequence of the the disenfranchisement, resentment, and desperation resulting from poverty and discrimination. Or both. But the first is "cultural" and the second is "socio-economic."

Maybe part of the question is to ask whether it represents an insuperable obstacle or defense to say, "It's cultural." For example, if gangs are cultural then they cannot be criticized, at least on the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized. For such a person—and they are common—I would ask why we must accept the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized.

For such a person—and they are common—I would ask why we must accept the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized. — Leontiskos

This is essentially my question :D. But it's also, WHEN can we distill that it is cultural vs. other factors? The first is more of an axiological question, the second is more of a technical question akin to a sociological analysis of some sort.

At what point can we distill with more certainty cultural factors from others (geographic, socio-economic, individual psychological, etc.)? — schopenhauer1

One way of looking at this is that "culture" is simply what remains of a statistical difference between two groups once you have eliminated anything more specific than that.

The other approach is to conclude based on the behaviour of some sample. If you can distill a cultural practice from the sample, and that practice provides an explanation for the difference you're seeing, then that's evidence that culture is causing the difference.

Others would say that it derives from socio-economic circumstances of simply being poor. If you are poor, and discriminated, these are the activities that a subgroup might tend towards.. — schopenhauer1

That really is a separate question though, isn't it? One would be whether there's causal connection between some cultural practice and a statistically significant deviation in outcomes.

The other is whether you can then clearly trace back the origins of the culture. The latter will often be immensely difficult, but is not necessary required to solve a problem.

The other approach is to conclude based on the behaviour of some sample. If you can distill a cultural practice from the sample, and that practice provides an explanation for the difference you're seeing, then that's evidence that culture is causing the difference. — Echarmion

True yes, can you cite any specific cases of this being done accurately?

The other is whether you can then clearly trace back the origins of the culture. The latter will often be immensely difficult, but is not necessary required to solve a problem. — Echarmion

True enough. And they intertwine to some extent. But what would be factors you would compare to tell its culture versus say, socio-economic? What can be used a sort of constant?

But it's also, WHEN can we distill that it is cultural vs. other factors? — schopenhauer1

If I am right in saying that culture is a kind of societal habit, then I would say that a non-cultural cause is anything which does not flow from that kind of societal habit. For example, if gangs are a result of poverty, and if poverty is not a societal habit, then the poverty that produces gangs is not a cultural cause.

The trick is that poverty can become cultural even when it is not at first. Probably everything is like this, which is what makes the question difficult. My guess is that an important distinction must be made between high culture and just culture. The Chinese have a tea culture and an opium culture. The first is "high culture" or intentional culture, whereas the second is just culture, or else undesirable culture.

For example, if gangs are a result of poverty, and if poverty is not a societal habit, then the poverty that produces gangs is not a cultural cause. — Leontiskos

Ok, so how do you know which is attributed to which? Should it be condemned if it is cultural, or is culture sacrosanct? To what extent?

The trick is that poverty can become cultural even when it is not at first. Probably everything is like this, which is what makes the question difficult. My guess is that an important distinction must be made between high culture and just culture. The Chinese have a tea culture and an opium culture. The first is "high culture" or intentional culture, whereas the second is just culture, or else undesirable culture. — Leontiskos

Let's say that culture was not at all in the picture, and you disapproved of someone's individual habit.. But then you realized that that habit was actually part of their culture. Does the disapproval change? If so, why?

Female circumcision in Muslim countries - is this an expression of their religion or their culture? Or both? Muslim apologists in the West will frequently argue that this phenomenon is not a part of Islam, but a cultural phenomenon. I wonder how easy it is to separate culture from religion. Is American evangelical Christianity a form of Christianity? Or is it an American cultural phenomenon? Or both - a religion reimagined through a cultural milieu.

Female circumcision in Muslim countries - is this an expression of their religion or their culture? Or both? Muslim apologists in the West will frequently argue that this phenomenon is not a part of Islam, but a cultural phenomenon. I wonder how easy it is to separate culture from religion. Is American evangelical Christianity a form of Christianity? Or is it an American cultural phenomenon? Or both - a religion reimagined through a cultural milieu. — Tom Storm

Good points. I guess I should amend this that religion is PART of the culture. In fact, I think that it is indeed part of the definition of what would be cultural:

From Google AI:

Culture is the collection of beliefs, values, and behaviors that a group of people share, such as a nation or religious group. It also includes the language, customs, and ideas about roles and relationships.

For such a person—and they are common—I would ask why we must accept the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized. — Leontiskos

This is essentially my question :D. [...it] is more of an axiological question — schopenhauer1

I tend to blame Rawls for this sort of cultural relativism. When you can't figure out how to ground morality objectively, then you just stop at the level of culture, and that's what Rawls did.

Ok, so how do you know which is attributed to which? Should it be condemned if it is cultural, or is culture sacrosanct? To what extent?

...

Let's say that culture was not at all in the picture, and you disapproved of someone's individual habit.. But then you realized that that habit was actually part of their culture. Does the disapproval change? If so, why? — schopenhauer1

I tend to see culture and habit as parallel. So the first question is, "Suppose you see someone doing something that you disapprove of, but then you realize that they are habituated to this act. Does the disapproval change?" Yes, it changes qua culpability and capability. For example, there is a moral difference between someone who freely engages in a bad act and someone who is addicted to it.

Culture is the same, but at a deeper level. It can perhaps even be conceived as the amalgamation of a people or a people's history, which is then confronted by the amalgamation of a different people. There is a parallel between the moral confrontation between two persons and the moral confrontation between two cultures. And we must remember to distinguish between morality and custom in order to avoid condemning what is contrary to our own customs but not to morality.

This is essentially my question :D. [...it] is more of an axiological question

I tend to blame Rawls for this sort of cultural relativism. When you can't figure out how to ground morality objectively, then you just stop at the level of culture, and that's what Rawls did. — Leontiskos

Want to elaborate? Provide a quote or example from Rawls, and what you see as problematic with it?

For example, there is a moral difference between someone who freely engages in a bad act and someone who is addicted to it. — Leontiskos

So is culture akin to addiction in that it is a mechanism whereby free will is limited to an extent? This gets into some interesting stuff though because then can any individual habits not be cultural to some extent? Free will vs. determinism starts entering the debate. I rather not go there, but hopefully you will veer it away from that inevitability with a response as to how culture can be distilled out.. It also seems a bit odd because we like to think OTHER subgroups are determined (by culture), where OURS (usually the dominant culture) is one whereby free will and rational analysis of one's behavior reigns. Is that the case though?

And we must remember to distinguish between morality and custom in order to avoid condemning what is contrary to our own customs but not to morality. — Leontiskos

But can't certain cultural customs be immoral? Why would you make such a sharp distinction?

Short response before I head out for the evening...

So is culture akin to addiction in that it is a mechanism whereby free will is limited to an extent? — schopenhauer1

For Aristotle habit is the basis of both vice and virtue.

But can't certain cultural customs be immoral? — schopenhauer1

Sure, and that's why the caution I spoke of is required. If we condemn based solely on our own customs then at best we are imposing a non-moral norm, and at worst we are imposing an immoral norm.

For Aristotle habit is the basis of both vice and virtue. — Leontiskos

This bypasses my question, and doubles down even. It is assumed "virtue building" such as a program that one might enter into as an Aristotlean or Stoic or whatnot, would seem to be a freely chosen philosophy that one is intending to follow. A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? Is the practitioner of a philosophy and an individual acting under the enculturation of a subgroup's culture the same thing? Is there a substantive difference or is it all culture all the way down?

There are dozens of other examples where things get entangled. Let's say you have a subgroup that allows their kids to essentially run amok in a neighborhood.. They let 3 year olds run in the street, but that is part of their culture.. But let's say in the major culture it would be frowned upon to let a three year old run back and forth on a street. — schopenhauer1

This is the exact issue which is going to, likely, prevent any real multi-culturalism every working. We would need to be blaming hte other culture to support those positions. THe 'home' culture wins, on principle alone. But this doesn't have anything to say morally, if you want a reasoned position, as opposed to 'this makes sense to me culture'. And back we are to the first issue.. It just wont work.

A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? — schopenhauer1

No, that's you reading and interpreting ideas. Culture is very real and it can really impact a person whether they "agree" to it or not. Culture to a large extent is impressed upon an individual not so with philosophy.

Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects — schopenhauer1

You can be against certain cultures, but there's certainly a logic to that culture that you need to be aware of. So usually just saying "I'm against X culture" sounds kind of stupid -- it's like the accuser isn't not engaging with the logic behind the cultural practice.

I think you can take any behavior and analyze it out for influences from the most poignantly personal all the way out to the nature of life.

One thing I remember from time to time is the comment from a friend who was listening to me explaining race relations. He said "You know you're just trying to understand yourself.". I was stunned, but I knew it was true.

This is the exact issue which is going to, likely, prevent any real multi-culturalism every working. We would need to be blaming hte other culture to support those positions. THe 'home' culture wins, on principle alone. But this doesn't have anything to say morally, if you want a reasoned position, as opposed to 'this makes sense to me culture'. And back we are to the first issue.. It just wont work. — AmadeusD

I'm not quite sure though.. Can we distill that 3 year olds running in the street, just like the roaming dogs example, be considered unsafe for the kids/animals? Why would safety not be considered valuable for the sake of child/animal? Can we perhaps track other factors and say the society that doesn't allow these practices has X outcome and the one's that do have Y outcome, and THUS, we see correlation, or would this just be trying to square something that cannot be reconciled- that cultures do what they do without any real resolution to who is correct?

The way this plays out is generally, if the subgroup has domination over a geographic area, most likely it will continue.. so the dogs and children roaming, would continue as long as there is not sufficient population of the dominant culture in that particular geographic zone. So in a way, the multiculturalism does persist, it is reconciled by geographic separation.. This starts getting muddled when things like "gentrification" happen and the old-subgroups and the new subgroups may clash a bit.. The new ones might respect the old one, even if THEY wouldn't practice it, or they might be called out, or whatnot.. You can see the possibilities. These play out daily across the world I suppose in various countries with multicultural populations.

No, that's you reading and interpreting ideas. Culture is very real and it can really impact a person whether they "agree" to it or not. Culture to a large extent is impressed upon an individual not so with philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos

I mean where is the dividing line. In some ways, religions can be seen as a philosophy, no? One can even enter a religious community rather than being born into one.

You can be against certain cultures, but there's certainly a logic to that culture that you need to be aware of. So usually just saying "I'm against X culture" sounds kind of stupid -- it's like the accuser isn't not engaging with the logic behind the cultural practice. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, okay, a culture that say, perceives its land being stolen believes it has a right to get it back by any means necessary (terrorism).. There is a logic. I understand it. So?

I think you can take any behavior and analyze it out for influences from the most poignantly personal all the way out to the nature of life.

One thing I remember from time to time is the comment from a friend who was listening to me explaining race relations. He said "You know you're just trying to understand yourself.". I was stunned, but I knew it was true. — frank

I like that.. To add to this.. I notice that with minority subgroups people like to use contingent forces that make people act a certain way. For the dominant group, it is more seemingly free willed. To explain X subgroup you need to analyze culture. To explain Y dominant group you need to analyze the individual.

Why would safety not be considered valuable for the sake of child/animal? — schopenhauer1

Because (and this really is the rub, to me) that culture either doesn't possess the concept, or rejects that account. There's no real argument if that's the case..

So in a way, the multiculturalism does persist, it is reconciled by geographic separation. — schopenhauer1

These seem to run up against each other?

This starts getting muddled when things like "gentrification" happen and the old-subgroups and the new subgroups may clash a bit.. — schopenhauer1

I think this precedes the geographical demarcation above. I think it works by initial acceptance, until this (the clash) occurs, and hten over time, either there's violent confrontation, or geographical separation. This, to me, is not multi-culturalism and it seems, to me, that its a bit of a red herring. We want cultural acceptance so we're not invading each other. I can't see much more than this being achievable cross-culturally.

I mean where is the dividing line. In some ways, religions can be seen as a philosophy, no? One can even enter a religious community rather than being born into one. — schopenhauer1

Religions contain philosophy. I wouldn't describe them as philosophy.

Sure, okay, a culture that say, perceives its land being stolen believes it has a right to get it back by any means necessary (terrorism).. There is a logic. I understand it. So? — schopenhauer1

I agree that cultures can be wicked. But there is a logic behind it that can be explored.

For the dominant group, it is more seemingly free willed — schopenhauer1

Is it? Are they better at taking responsibility for their actions?

Because (and this really is the rub, to me) that culture either doesn't possess the concept, or rejects that account. There's no real argument if that's the case.. — AmadeusD

That's an interesting point. Is it the job to educate, or let them be? This is a classic case of cultural relativism, or better/worse cultural practices? Why is the latter shunned, or is it?

These seem to run up against each other? — AmadeusD

I mean, multicultural in a broad geographic region because of the relative isolation of subgroups from each other/ the dominant group. If there's enough isolation the dominant group can go on condemning X practice amongst its own, whilst the subgroup persists in it, because there is no one there to witness it or not enough at least to really do much about it except shake their heads or tacitly accept this is their way...

I think this precedes the geographical demarcation above. I think it works by initial acceptance, until this (the clash) occurs, and hten over time, either there's violent confrontation, or geographical separation. This, to me, is not multi-culturalism and it seems, to me, that its a bit of a red herring. We want cultural acceptance so we're not invading each other. I can't see much more than this being achievable cross-culturally. — AmadeusD

Not sure what you mean.. Yeah at some point either acceptance or confrontation will happen.

I agree that cultures can be wicked. But there is a logic behind it that can be explored. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, well you made it seem by knowing the logic, the intolerance will go away. But what if knowing the logic makes no difference or even makes it worse?

Is it? Are they better at taking responsibility for their actions? — frank

It seems to be the case this is what happens in multicultural societies or when dealing cross-culturally. If let's say a subgroup individual does X "bad" action, we say, "Oh he is a product of that culture". If the dominant culture individual does X "bad" action, we say "He made a bad decision" or at the least make it much more atomized (it's his family at the most, or his own personal background or life story, not necessarily cultural).

And we must remember to distinguish between morality and custom in order to avoid condemning what is contrary to our own customs but not to morality. — Leontiskos

I agree with much of what you have said.

How easy is this in practice? For instance, how women in some cultures are treated might seem a moral issue or just a custom, depending upon one's values.

When you can't figure out how to ground morality objectively, then you just stop at the level of culture, and that's what Rawls did. — Leontiskos

This may be true. But how do we ground morality objectively? There is certainly no agreement on whether this can be done.

'Foundations' such as well-being, human flourishing, rational consistency, divine command, etc - are choices which seem to reflect subjective and cultural assumptions and preferences. Can there be a purely neutral way to choose one grounding over another, without invoking some form of value judgment or preference?

Right, well you made it seem by knowing the logic, the intolerance will go away. But what if knowing the logic makes no difference or even makes it worse? — schopenhauer1

The intolerance won't go away, but it will help us understand it. I do find learning the logic behind it interesting -- it helps us understand things like the depth of the wickedness and where its roots lie. And this leads us to ask: Were the roots themselves wicked or were they twisted by the culture?

The intolerance won't go away, but it will help us understand it. I do find learning the logic behind it interesting -- it helps us understand things like the depth of the wickedness and where its roots lie. And this leads us to ask: Were the roots themselves wicked or were they twisted by the culture? — BitconnectCarlos

Ok so what if there was no logic, it's literally mimetic in that everyone's ancestors did it from way back when?

Edit: That is to say, functionally speaking, it wouldn't make a difference if the practice was just blind tradition or out of a logic that that tradition holds.