Ok so what if there was no logic, it's literally mimetic in that everyone's ancestors did it from way back when? — schopenhauer1

I don't think I believe in this. Can you cite an example? Even very strange religious practices have a logic to them.

I don't think I believe in this. Can you cite an example? Even very strange religious practices have a logic to them. — BitconnectCarlos

I wasn’t necessarily thinking religious practice though there could be just no reason for it (except post facto). I was thinking more like three year olds playing in the street or letting dogs roam neighborhood without being confined to owners property…that’s how it was done in the old country isn’t really a logic. Just a practice that’s accepted.

I was thinking more like three year olds playing in the street or letting dogs roam neighborhood without being confined to owners property…that’s how it was done in the old country isn’t really a logic. — schopenhauer1

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that.

I wasn’t necessarily thinking religious practice though there could be just no reason for it — schopenhauer1

I can't think of one.

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). — schopenhauer1

It would be cool if everyone could be looked at as individuals. But it's also true that some people have challenges where others have privilege, you know?

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that. — BitconnectCarlos

Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? Do you just argue to argue?

I can't think of one. — BitconnectCarlos

I’m sure a lot of religious practices had no discernible origin and later ideas and stories made it have a backstory but none of that matters to my point.

It would be cool if everyone could be looked at as individuals. But it's also true that some people have challenges where others have privilege, you know? — frank

Can that contribute to self-fulfilling prophecy? Is that itself treating others as having less agency? Should there be two tiers of morality- one fir cultural subgroups one for dominant?

Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? Do you just argue to argue? — schopenhauer1

No I just see a logic to certain practices where you don't. Or the parents could just be idiots. Or drug addicts. Not always so easy to pin down the roots of a practice.

EDIT: Seeing children playing in the street or dogs roaming may very well not be culture. A good example of a culture would be the US military. It is also non-theological.

I’m sure a lot of religious practices had no discernible origin and later ideas and stories made it have a backstory — schopenhauer1

Then those ideas and stories are the logic.

Can that contribute to self-fulfilling prophecy? Is that itself treating others as having less agency? — schopenhauer1

It's possible. One source of counter message is in forms of Christianity that teach having faith in yourself. They focus on how to avoid the pitfall of pity. Someone may think they're helping you with their pity when it's actually destructive.

It's possible. One source of counter message is in forms of Christianity that teach having faith in yourself. They focus on how to avoid the pitfall of pity. Someone may think they're helping you with their pity when it's actually destructive. — frank

I think it would be an ironic if a social justice warrior ended up being a soft bigot in regards for peoples capacity for agency based on subculture, no? In a multicultural society how much is it incumbent to teach the subgroup the dominant customs? What if they’re resistant? When does it matter? Views on Safety? Violence?

In a multicultural society how much is it incumbent to teach the subgroup the dominant customs? — schopenhauer1

I live in a capitalist society, so that's something that money settles. Some rappers are billionaires, right?

Why is the latter shunned, or is it? — schopenhauer1

(if i'm reading right) I think the latter is shunned in practice as considered 'bigoted' (top tip: It's not) and the former is shunned in theory because we couldn't possibly land on "everything is permissible by it's own group". No one seems to think that moral theory works (otherwise, Rotherham rape gangs are acceptable, if you see where i'm taking this...)

I do think there's an 'essential' tension there. Cultures should be able to protect themselves. But people should be able to move through cultures without demand.

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... — schopenhauer1

I think I've addressed with this in mind. For instance, we don't, generally, look to the mid-East and want to do anything the stark cultural differences. But, if it were a group within our borders, we would want to. So, if there's geographical separation, I think it needs to be of a kind that crosses jurisdiction for my point to make sense. That said, I think the version of yours that I think actually happens is simply 'hiding'. Once found, we don't shake out heads - we prosecute.

Not sure what you mean.. — schopenhauer1

What I mean (I thought his was clear above, so apologies) is that this confrontation necessarily precedes any geographical separation giving the appearance of multi-culturalism. It's a literal rejection of multi-culturalism.

Blame only holds value if directed at yourself.

An easy example of this would be terrorists. There is a certain school of thought that might say terrorism is a product of the "oppressors". The opposite side would say that terrorism is a result of culture. Some might provide a mix of the two. — schopenhauer1

I'd say terrorism is simply a method of warfare usually done by a non-state actor, sometimes just by a single individual (example of Anders Breivik comes to mind). It's intention is usually to get media coverage and is different from an insurgency. And naturally "terrorism" is used in narrative to describe any non-state actor (or even state actor) that isn't viewed as a legal combatant or doesn't apply to the laws of war. Or then simply is a term used in propaganda for describing the enemy.

Something happening because of culture has to be specifically related to that culture. Only then can we really blame the culture. Especially when the issue is something that the underlying culture promotes. If our present culture promotes individuality and thinking of oneself, consumerism and having wealth, then us not being great in collective efforts or in thinking of others could be blamed on our culture itself.

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

Religion is normally thought to be part of culture.

@schopenhauer1 (and in deference to @T Clark): It might be useful to define our terms. Culture is that which...

provides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational and economic life, encompassing both public and private spheres. — SEP: Culture

Or...

the sum total of a given people's beliefs, customs, knowledge and technology. These are learned and constitute a dynamic system. This system exists outside the body and is not inherited through biology. — The Royal Anthropological Institute

But @schopenhauer1 is using it more specifically to mean the cultures of minority groups:

So there are various factors one can attribute the behavior of a subgroup of people within a population. This can be any subgroup- geographic, ethnic, political, religious, etc. — schopenhauer1

Anyway, @Tom Storm, to say that female circumcision is not a part of Islam, but a cultural phenomenon, is probably to say that its status with regard to the religion as such (rather than to actually existing religion as practiced in that local culture) is contested, and varies between cultures that share the same majority religion. The local culture where it is practised is such that Islam in that culture allows or encourages it --- but there is no necessary connection. Which seems obviously true.

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that.
— BitconnectCarlos

Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? Do you just argue to argue? — schopenhauer1

When I was a 3-year-old, in a middle-class English suburb, I played out in the street till late-ish. That culture was more trusting than modern middle--class culture. To my mind the biggest danger to such a child is the growth of car ownership; cars and 3-year-olds don't mix unless the car drivers are super careful. To me this sort of issue is the crux of debates about 'culture'. Increased car use and diminished public transport use are associated with greater individualism and distrust of others, fear of the stranger. But much cultural argument wants to blame / scapegoat 'others': gangs of youths, dangerous individuals. Car-lovers don't want to blame cars. Car-loving gets invisibly embedded in 'culture', so even now, we find it easier to imagine, to deal with the climate crisis, electric cars, instead of *less* cars.

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

One can be morally against something, while still being tolerant of it. (In fact, tolerance of something seems to already imply some moral distaste for it?)

I'm not one to tell other people how to live their lives, but I'll pass moral judgements if prompted or given good reason to, in the sense that I won't shy away from calling a spade a spade just to appear 'tolerant'.

In that context, it seems obvious to me that dysfunctional or degenerate cultures can undermine a society's capacity for prosperity.

Culture very strongly correlates to the moral values people are brought up with, whether they're taught implicitly or explicitly.

It will translate firstly into how children are raised, subsequently how they unfold as adult individuals, and lastly what they pass on to the following generations.

One reason why these cultural moral teachings are so important, is because they become so deeply ingrained into people and the society they live in, that many will not be able to question these teachings at any point in their life. They become so normalized that the majority of people will be unaware they even exist and affect their lives on a daily basis.

To make a long story short: some moral values are simply worse than others, and by their fruits you will know them.

The local culture where it is practised is such that Islam in that culture allows or encourages it --- but there is no necessary connection. Which seems obviously true. — Jamal

Indeed, but this doesn't seem the same as some Muslim activists saying that it is not a part of Islamic culture. It ends up a bit like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

But then it is hard to identify consistent facts in any religion that are consistent across that religion. Biblical literalism is not found across all Christianity, nor are Trump supporters, nor is belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Just about everything held within a single religion is contested by others within that religion. I struggle to see exactly where the demarcation is between culture and religion, whether it matters and how any distinction can clearly be understood. Who do we blame for what? :wink:

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. — schopenhauer1

Virtue is a kind of habit of or a use of a kind of habit; it is not habit per se. I drew the parallel between culture and habit, not culture and virtue.

What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? — schopenhauer1

I've said that a culture is a kind of societal habit. On that view nothing an individual does in themselves has any necessary connection with culture (because the action or habit of an individual is not necessarily the action or habit of a culture).

Is the practitioner of a philosophy and an individual acting under the enculturation of a subgroup's culture the same thing? — schopenhauer1

One is intentional and the other is not necessarily intentional, no?

Is there a substantive difference or is it all culture all the way down? — schopenhauer1

Suppose we have a norm, "Do not treat others as you would not like to be treated." Suppose a culture instantiates this norm. Suppose there are two people in the culture that are baptized into the cultural norm, Bob and Joe. Bob is under the influence of the cultural norm, and it influences his actions. Joe, on the other hand, while being under the influence of the cultural norm, also perceives that it is a moral norm, which he then freely assents to in a rational manner. Bob and Joe are different. Bob holds the norm in a merely cultural manner, whereas Joe also holds it in a moral manner. Joe is therefore rationally and intentionally invested in the norm in a way that Bob is not. We could argue whether Bob is virtuous for following the cultural norm, but it is certainly true that Joe is more virtuous than Bob.

(We could go on to consider a third person who intentionally rejects the cultural norm.)

Virtue is a kind of habit of a use of a kind of habit; it is not habit per se. I drew the parallel between culture and habit, not culture and virtue. — Leontiskos

I don't think I was confusing the two. Virtue-building is a part of a culture of a philosophical school of thought.

I've said that a culture is a kind of societal habit. On that view nothing an individual does in themselves has any necessary connection with culture (because the action or habit of an individual is not necessarily the action or habit of a culture). — Leontiskos

Ok so in your view "societal habit" is the key.

One is intentional and the other is not necessarily intentional, no? — Leontiskos

I'd agree yes.

Suppose we have a norm, "Do not treat others as you would not like to be treated." Suppose a culture instantiates this norm. Suppose there are two people in the culture that are baptized into the cultural norm, Bob and Joe. Bob is under the influence of the cultural norm, and it influences his actions. Joe, on the other hand, while being under the influence of the cultural norm, also perceives that it is a moral norm, which he then freely assents to in a rational manner. Bob and Joe are different. Bob holds the norm in a merely cultural manner, whereas Joe also holds it in a moral manner. Joe is therefore rationally and intentionally invested in the norm in a way that Bob is not. We could argue whether Bob is virtuous for following the cultural norm, but it is certainly true that Joe is more virtuous than Bob.

(We could of course consider a third person who intentionally rejects the cultural norm.) — Leontiskos

I'd agree with this mainly.

When I was a 3-year-old, in a middle-class English suburb, I played out in the street till late-ish. That culture was more trusting than modern middle--class culture. To my mind the biggest danger to such a child is the growth of car ownership; cars and 3-year-olds don't mix unless the car drivers are super careful. To me this sort of issue is the crux of debates about 'culture'. Increased car use and diminished public transport use are associated with greater individualism and distrust of others, fear of the stranger. But much cultural argument wants to blame / scapegoat 'others': gangs of youths, dangerous individuals. Car-lovers don't want to blame cars. Car-loving gets invisibly embedded in 'culture', so even now, we find it easier to imagine, to deal with the climate crisis, electric cars, instead of *less* cars. — mcdoodle

I see what you're saying, but there is also common sense. Three year olds are still pretty young. Not realizing that if the dominant culture has many fast cars, or not including the risk if their child might get hit is problematic on a cultural level, one might think. Either the old culture doesn't put much emphasis on risk, and also has busy streets, or the old culture didn't have busy streets so never calculated the risk. That habit must start conforming if the security is valued, one might think.

An example of the old culture being the same, but the values being different (same amount of traffic/different value of risk), is how some countries view trash/litter. Some countries had anti-litter campaigns in the 60s. Litter is now seen culturally by the dominant groups of these countries as frowned upon. One doesn't generally chuck their garbage out the window, as one might have wont to do previously. Other countries don't value this perhaps. You might see beautiful landscapes littered with trash. The emphasis on litter isn't in that culture's framework, perhaps.

Edit: Let me provide the requisite scathing remarks about these "first-world" countries also being the biggest polluters, makers of plastics, and petroleum products, and making of all-around junk. I'm not excusing nor overlooking this. I guess my point is more on micro-scales of communities rather than large geo-political economic policies.

One reason why these cultural moral teachings are so important, is because they become so deeply ingrained into people and the society they live in, that many will not be able to question these teachings at any point in their life. They become so normalized that the majority of people will be unaware they even exist and affect their lives on a daily basis.

To make a long story short: some moral values are simply worse than others, and by their fruits you will know them. — Tzeentch

Yeah, this is true. It could be subtle things. It's generally when cultures clash that these become prominent. And then what is cultural, and what is just individual, is also a question. One tends to excuse something if it is a cultural tendency, rather than just someone being X, Y, Z (inconsiderate, etc.).

Just about everything held within a single religion is contested by others within that religion. I struggle to see exactly where the demarcation is between culture and religion, whether it matters and how any distinction can clearly be understood. Who do we blame for what? — Tom Storm

So a question I might ask is why for example, and this is controversial, is terrorism, that is to say, purposeful targeting of civilians to strike terror/fear/provoke response, and using one's population for fodder, a cultural trait of some countries, or is that simply situational.. ANY culture would act EXACTLY like this under X circumstance? Are there cultures that are more insulated from these violent tendences towards perceived oppression? I'm thinking of the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s-60s in the US. This seemed to be largely peaceful, and to a large extent won the day, legislatively (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, school integration, etc.).

Edit: One can say, MLK, Jr. and others created the culture for this to take place- even using religious rhetoric in doing so.. which is in stark contrast with other religious rhetoric that might use fire-and-brimstone, JUSTICE (but the violent kind of comeuppance).

Edit 2: To continue the line of thought that , if let's say a culture simply had built-in (extremely) violent responses to injustices, and then someone was not from that culture but promoted (extremely) violent responses to injustices, but advocated it out of philosophical regard, if we determined the extreme violence was "bad", would the philosophical regard agent be worse than the cultural agent?

Violent resistance against oppression is historically quite common across all regions of the world.

Violent resistance against oppression is historically quite common across all regions of the world. — Tzeentch

Yes, but we must extricate the kind of violence (what it's aimed at, who is allowed to be harmed), and also answer the questions at hand.. to distill them from above:

is terrorism, that is to say, purposeful targeting of civilians to strike terror/fear/provoke response, and using one's population for fodder, a cultural trait of some countries, or is that simply situational.. ANY culture would act EXACTLY like this under X circumstance? — schopenhauer1

if let's say a culture simply had built-in (extremely) violent responses to injustices, and then someone was not from that culture but promoted (extremely) violent responses to injustices, but advocated it out of philosophical regard, if we determined the extreme violence was "bad", would the philosophical regard agent be worse than the cultural agent? — schopenhauer1

Violent resistance movements tend to use very comparable methods, that usually extend to acts of extreme cruelty and targeting of civilians.

You can even find contemporary examples in Europe that followed those patterns, like the Irish Troubles and the Basque conflict in Spain.

I think it's a human tendency to prefer peaceful solutions over costly violent conflicts, but when there are no peaceful paths available its equally human to resist violently.

One cannot be against a culture or blame it for blameworthy acts because only individuals can perform blameworthy acts. One has to avoid holistic methods for determining blame or guilt or innocence and use individualistic methods, or else one will always be wrong and therefor unjust.

I think it's a human tendency to prefer peaceful solutions over costly violent conflicts, but when there are no peaceful paths available its equally human to resist violently. — Tzeentch

When can you condemn a cultural practice?
Is all violent resistance justified because someone perceives it to be justified? If Pieter was a Netherlander who believed that eminent domain was a made up government fantasy and property was eternally one's own property in perpetuity, and that if that property were to be ceased by the Netherlands government under eminent domain, and Pieter violently attacked Netherlanders, is he justified? Let's say he invoked "international law"? But this digresses.. because it becomes more relevant if it is a philosophical stance versus a cultural stance, to this debate.

One cannot be against a culture or blame it for blameworthy acts because only individuals can perform blameworthy acts. One has to avoid holistic methods for determining blame or guilt or innocence and use individualistic methods, or else one will always be wrong and therefor unjust. — NOS4A2

But surely culture influences individuals, no? Conservatives love this point. So do liberals, but in their own way (exaggerated "Wokeness" and "religious fundamentalism").

But surely culture influences individuals, no? Conservatives love this point. So do liberals, but in their own way (exaggerated "Wokeness" and "religious fundamentalism").

A lot of people do blame culture, certainly.

Are there cultures that are more insulated from these violent tendences towards perceived oppression? — schopenhauer1

Don't know enough to say. Australian Aboriginal groups, for instance, have been remarkable peaceful in the past century, despite continued oppression, loss of their land, not getting voting rights until 1965, the taking of their children, etc. If we hold that cultures are diverse (which seems obvious enough) then surely it follows that they won't all respond in the same way to injustice.

But surely culture influences individuals, no? — schopenhauer1

Hard to imagine how people's values, beliefs, expectations and actions are not shaped by culture. It looks to me like some Asian cultures and some closed religious cultures are going to have more impact on 'shared values and behaviours' than other cultures which emphasise individualism. But where individualism is emphasised and acted upon, is this not also culture at work?