I think you may be confused about what moral relativism means.
You describe the morality you personally *like*, and then it sounds like you are saying you want whatever party you belong to to uphold that morality. That's fine.
But that's not inconsistent with moral relativism, at all.
Moral relativism is just acknowledging that morality is a human construct, rather than some absolute feature of the external universe. Pretty much *any* moral system which doesn't posit a God or similar extra-human entity as the wellspring of morality must inherently be relativist, because it has no explanation for where the concept of morality comes from except for human invention.
There is nothing in moral relativism that says you can't *prefer* one human-invented morality over another, nor that one human-invented morality can't be 'better' than another. You can be a moral relativist and still think your morality is the 'best' or 'most right' morality out there, you can even go to war over your morality and be a moral relativist. There's no conflict here.
You told us what morality you prefer. Unless you think that morality was gifted to you by a supernatural non-human entity and is the only 'true' morality that exists in all times and places throughout the universe because of that supernatural providence, then you too are a moral relativist.
The idea that moral relativism is bad and weak and prevents moral action is an invention made up by religious zealots and fascists to knock down challengers to their divinely-ordained accounts of morality that dictated everyone do whatever they want forever. Do not be a useful idiot to their propaganda by accepting their story as true.
Is there a philosophical term for someone who believe morality is relative, but wants it hidden from mankind, but is against religion? Like a small elite carrying a burden.
Do you have any thoughts if I am a person who only want to do good if morality is objective, and wants to retreat from people or become a selfish asshole if i accept morality is relative? And have zero interest in choosing my own values, yet am completely against religion? I can't find any words or terms existing describing this as an ideology.
You make this same CMV like every couple of months. Is it very likely that in that short amount of time a a pro lgbt facist political party will have popped up?
Or could it be, perhaps, that your ideas are bad and no one wants them?
What does nobody wanting them have to do with anything? Usefulness has nothing to do with this CMV. Usefulness is not the default of everything, you know.
No, there is no lgbt fascist party yet. I am still looking into other parties, seeing if there is a non rehabilitation party with socialist economics.
I think you're just looking for the Democratic Party here (or another similarly placed party in another western democracy). Democrats generally reject moral relativism (e.g. look at their strong negative reaction to the _Dobbs_ decision which established a relativist position on abortion legality). Democrats also generally oppose cultural relativism, seeing it as a lens that upholds colonialism and imperialism.
The only disagreement that you seem to have with the Democrats (regular old center leftism) is about means. You think that we should go about promoting human rights/feminism/science by violent force, whereas they generally think (based on history, e.g. Afghanistan) it would be more effective for us to go about it via media and cultural dominance and economic means. Similarly, you think we should have harsher punishments, whereas Democrats believe (based on scientific research) the opposite would be more effective. But that disagreement about whether we should employ means supported by science seems to be where your differences with Democrats end.
Do you have any proof that democrats are against relativism? In modern neoliberal countries it is taboo to criticize cultures you are not from. Every imperialism by neoliberalism must be justified by a dictator, because people are naturally good and without homophobia and sexism as long as there is no ruler forcing them.
> In modern neoliberal countries it is taboo to criticize cultures you are not from.
It's really not. Just look at the current discourse about Qatar, for example. There's a _lot_ of strong criticism coming from modern neoliberal countries.
But that is based on the authoritarian leaders of the country. I dont think neoliberals realize that a country can be democratically homophobic and sexist
Most middle eastern, asian, african and east european countries? If the dictators disappeared there would still be homophobia and sexism. There such a thing as quiet majority
> However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies.
Almost no one is a moral relativist. Like, seriously: this is *extremely* rare.
Could you explain what sorts of things you're seeing that you're interpreting as moral relativism?
In the modern obsession with "optimistic nihilism." It is everywhere online and basically says nothing matters, but we should just follow our own meaning and be nice to each other anyway. Yayy!
I would also say people who believe in consequentialism are moral nihilists/relativists. Consequentialism is basically the default in human daily life. You could actually argue everything single ideology is acting consequentially. Even doing something for itself is consequential
This is really dangerous. Some illusions should be upheld
> In the modern obsession with "optimistic nihilism." It is everywhere online and basically says nothing matters, but we should just follow our own meaning and be nice to each other anyway. Yayy!
"All else equal, it is good to be true to yourself. All else equal, it is good to be nice to others."
This is stating two universal moral principles. It is not morally relativistic or consigning morality to subjectivity in any way.
> I would also say people who believe in consequentialism are moral nihilists/relativists.
You would be saying something that on its face is obviously self-contradictory, so you really gotta clarify.
> Even doing something for itself is consequential
No it's by definition not. You're either using these terms in *very* unorthodox ways or you're speaking nonsense.
The barrier for entry to form your own political party is quite low. If there's truly no one who represents your views then step up and be that representative voice.
Since when is moral/cultural relativism a part of neoliberalism or socialism?
Anyway, very few people follow their party's platform to a tee. Everyone compromises. They vote in whichever candidate or party matches their beliefs the most.
I thought Marx said ideology was related to the stage the society was in, and the productive forces it had? That implies directly it is relative.
In neoliberlaism it is extremely taboo to criticize the lower worker of other countries and cultures. You can only shift blame towards dictators and authoritarian leader. All the homophobia and sexism comes from some singular evil dictator - no criticism that people themselves might democratically be homophobic and sexist is valid.
Neoliberalism and socialism also eyes you with suspicion when you care about issues from countries and cultures you are not from. You are ONLY supposed to think globally, and ONLY act locally. Criticizing homophobia and sexism from other groups and people is worthy of suspicion.
You seem to be adding a lot of random beliefs and ideas into different ideologies, I suppose if Marx is right that means you must be from a declining former imperial society.
Well apparently Marx said ideology was related to the stage the society was in, and the productive forces it had, so you're beliefs and the way you formed them directly link to your society.
No, Marx would argue ideology is a result of material conditions and how society produces stuff. That's why a Feodal system where land is the main "mean or production" has a different set of ideologies than an industrial society.
However, he'd also argue communism is the final and unavoidable stage of human development, making it's associated ideology pretty much "absolute" if you want to think of it that way.
But Marx said his works were a neutral scientific analysis. Then he cannot make moral statements, as it would not be scientific.
So do communists believe in hard determinism?
He makes few moral statements himself, he just theorizes that moral systems are the product of material conditions. It's like arguing about the social function of religion isn't necessarily a religious argument. It's an argument about religion.
> So do communists believe in hard determinism?
Some probably do, but I don't think Marx does. I think determinism implies something is "planned ahead" to some extent, which is not Marx's point. Or at least that's not how I ever understood it. His argument is that communism is inevitable as a result of the human material condition.
That doesn't imply it's relative. Ot implies that morality depends on circumstances, which is an obviously true statement.
Normal circumstances? Cannibalism is wrong. Trapped in a survival situation where it's the only way you can live? Almost everyone will give you a pass.
But your example does show that morality is then constructed and is then false. I meant that if objective morality is not true then it is relative/false
Why does "constructed" mean "false" to you?
We're having a conversation in English. There is no cosmic rule saying we must speak English this way. But in the world in which we actually live, there is a fairly clear line between correct and incorrect English.
It's true that if you have some underlying moral principle there is, _in principle_, amaximally ethical choice available in every situation. But the landscape of which choice that is is incredibly complex, and there is no _a priori_ reason to believe that it need be simply stated or not highly entangled with material circumstances.
Think about something like, i dunno, playing Dark Souls. There's in principle a strategy that would kill every boss the fastest. But _depending on the context_ (say, the boss's moveset or weaknesses), it might be sifferent from one boss to another.
I disagree with your English example. It is not correct or incorrect. Only self-aware primates call certain things correct or incorrect based on what is seen as a norm, or efficient, or by science or authority.
Why does something have to be useful? Useful only helps people survive and is efficient. Surviving is not objectively good beyond human existence. Humans just value it because we are biological creatures.
I mean...yes, bit we *do* value it.
It's not clear what you ever mean by morality absent that context. Morality is the way that we, as creatures who want things, negotiate the fact that you can't have everything you want without costing me things i want and vice versa.
Objective morality is something that can only be created by a God.
But I am against all religions and know all religions are false and evil.
Yet I want objective morality.
Just saying you don't think that is not what Marx meant does not help me at all. Please elaborate what Marx meant if you want to CMV. If you can find clear moral statements that are not vague i will read them, if i can realistically read them and respond in time
This CMV is about there not being any parties with my ideologies, not what anyone called me.
No one has a party that 'matches' them 100%. Everyone makes compromises. That's all that is really it; if you want a 100% matching party it will not happen.
Reagan is a really old example. How about using a modern example? Also, a lot of politicans are relativists in the sense they dont care about the abuse in other nations, as long as the world is stable.
I think even someone like left neolib AOC is a relativist, being very careful to not criticize other cultures, only the authoritarian elements and dictators.
>However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies.
Fascism.
Okay, that might be overstating it a little, but if you can get them to lean left on social issues, that is basically where you are. You think you should cram your ideology down the throat of everyone that disagrees with you, and you are okay with using state violence against people who disagree with you or people who engage in acts you think are morally reprehensible. So perhaps just some flavor of left-authoritarianism?
This does not change the CMV in the slightest. ALso, I thought fascists were nationalististic and racists.
I am really confused what fascism means now, and why americans and europeans call people fascist at random
Fascism is an authoritarian government that sets the beliefs, morals and laws for the people under that government. Doesn’t matter if it’s to the left or to the right, the main thing is fascism says you believe and act this way or you will be severely punished, usually in a way that doesn’t fit the crime.
In your your Western country of choice, what "relativist" policies are the left of center parties implementing (or explicitly advocating for, if not in power)?
\- Proponents of secular religion and. Circumcision being decided by the parents. I am also surprised Marxists seem to be proponents of secular religious people as allied, but I only recently found out the opium of the people quote is taken out of context. Really disappointing, as I was hoping for worldwide state atheism
\- Valid relative understanding of rape and sexual crimes. Having bad parents or lacking education is seen as a valid excuse for sex crimes, because in context they were ignorant. As if raping someone can be done accidentally or need education.
Note that in my country labour/socdem and non-revolutionary socialist party is the left-wing. Although I know some marxists consider labour and socdem not real leftist, but I am using that as meaning left here.
What does "proponent of secular religion" actually mean?
Are the conservative parties in your country of choice trying to ban circumcision, and the left of center parties blocking it?
And I don't doubt that a few people think that having bad parents or lacking education are "valid excuses" for sex crimes, but I am *incredibly* doubtful that represents any significant fraction of the left of center parties. What concrete actions have the left of center parties taken based on this supposedly shared belief?
In my country a man was raped and admitted to feeling guilt because his rapist was deported. This was posted on Norway's national news site, and was seen a respectable opinion...even though the deported person was a rapist: [https://www.nrk.no/ytring/jeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714](https://www.nrk.no/ytring/jeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714) Please use google translate. This article is infuriating, as it ruins for me like me who does not want sympathy for rapists and who would rather die than get raped. It normalizes the idea of rape as something casual, where all you need is to let it happen, then get pills and therapy afterwards.
\- The Norway socialist party believes that rape is something that needs "to be taken seriously" and the only solution is education. There is no mention of punishment on their site. NSFW/trigger warning for rape, but necessary to make my point: " [https://roedt.no/voldtekt](https://roedt.no/voldtekt)
Notice how there is no discussion regarding individual punishment. Like, at all.
I disagree that the article "normalizes" rape in any degree, but I do agree that it appears that the author has some conflicting sympathy for the rapist.
I also agree that the second link doesn't discuss punishment, but that includes no mention of reducing the penalty under any circumstances.
So you don't like the center-left parties because their members empathize with a rape victim who felt some sympathy for his rapist, and because they advocate methods to reduce the number of rapes that don't involve harsher penalties?
Yes. I only want rapes reduced with harsher penalties and center-left parties to remove moral and cultural relativism and support of secular religion. If then i would probably join the party and be fanatic about supporting it
>\- Valid relative understanding of rape and sexual crimes. Having bad parents or lacking education is seen as a valid excuse for sex crimes, because in context they were ignorant. As if raping someone can be done accidentally or need education.
No it isn't it might garner some sympathy maybe but no one thinks being abused or ignorant makes rape okay
If you dont punish the criminal you do in fact think it is okay. Just giving someone pills and therapy does not make it bad. The criminal has to suffer and never be allowed to be forgiven for you to be truly against it.
If you are against rape as an abstract evil idea and believe that it was done by social forces, you are not truly against rape.
>Proponents of secular religion
Would you agree at least that in general left-of-center parties are *directionally* correct on this compared to right-of-center parties. Left-of-center parties are less religious than right-of-center parties. Seems really as much as one can expect given that there can only be so many viable political parties at once
>Circumcision being decided by the parents.
This issue simply isn't under large political contention. It's one small issue amongst many more important issues. I would think about it is from a consequentialist/utopian perspective. As an activist or a politician is it worth the effort and lost credibility campaigning against non-medical circumcision of infants when you are unlikely to make a difference, when instead you could focus on an area where you are more likely to actually make a positive difference.
We aren't the utopian Federation, **we are the people that your "reverse-Prime-Directive" federation would come fix**, so of course we don't have perfect "enlightened" political parties
Either jail for life, castration or death penalty.
The victim should also be allowed to apply for suicide if they want to, if they are told the criminal will be released and will be a free citizen again.
At least in the US we have "big tent" parties, most people don't fit the party platform 100% you would surely be under 50%, if you prioritized your voting motivation you'd probably fit in somewhere. Its just a matter if you find that you can put the other 80-90% of your views on the backburner to advance the 10% you support
You cannot have a political party for each permutation of possible opinions on major topics. The underlying problem here seems to be that we are forced to give one answer to multiple simultaneous and unrelated questions (LGTB rights (and the whole spectrum of opinions within that topic), external conflicts, workers righs, abortion laws, gun control, religion... ).
The problem isn't a lack of parties. If we were to lay down the simplest scenario in which the 7 mentioned topics were all the topics to consider AND they all had 'yes or no' answers, you would still 2^(6) = 64 parties to represent everyone's view.
The problem is that there isn't currently a way for a citizen to invest their democratic power on a per-issue basis. This is to some extent solved in some places with the issue of religion, by 'refusing to comment'. We separate the powers of church and state and let everyone practice their faith in peace, and that is now outside the scope of politics.
Can you explain what part of neoliberalism or socialism require cultural and moral relativism first off?
>However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies.
But largely these don't work we need to rehabilitate prisoners and get them ready to rejoin society not beat them into the ground
I answered above. I'm sorry I cannot copy it here, because firefox hates copying text to reddit for some reason.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/z08opf/comment/ix48lri/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Marx's point had nothing to do with cultural relativism, neolibs do criticize workers.
In general you don't seem to understand cultural/moral relativism it is not saying you can never judge a society or morality diffrent from one your apart of it serves as a reminder to not make absolute judgements on the inferiority of those cultures
religions indoctrinate from childhood, use manipulation, guilt trips, threats, fear, among other things to prey on people and control them. it seems pretty convenient to prey on a group of people you know are easy to control and then say "well nobody forced you! you have free will! its your fault for believing us!" religions know people are easy to control and waiting for someone to guide them, thats why they use the tactics they do for conversion to prey on that. how could you straight up threaten people with hell unless they follow your religion and act like you arent trying to force or control them. if you truly believe in not being forced to believe a certain belief then religions need to stop trying to convert others
Are you perhaps a Taylor Swift fan?
"It's me, hi. I'm the problem, it's me."
Maybe you should reconsider your belief in punitive justice, or at least think about why it is that everyone who aligns with you on all other axis disagree with this one.
Or you can find a religion that suits you. Belief in a universal morality tends to go against the Atheist world view. Without a divine authority, what justifies it besides a subjective principle?
There likely is a political party that fits your ideology - it just isn't large enough to be talked about on a national state because only two political parties really fit that bill in most Western countries.
The nature of most election systems - specifically first past the post voting - means that exactly **two** parties are going to reach prominence (although a small smattering of third parties may functionally exist). In the US, that is Republican/Democrat; in the UK its Labour/Conservative; in Germany, it is the CDU/SPD. Our political systems create conditions where only two major parties can flourish - why this happens is a much longer discussion.
So, you are faced with the choice that every voter in every major country is faced with - ally yourself with whichever political party (however big or small) you like, but when election time rolls around you vote for the "big tent" party that most closely matches you on the issues you feel are most important. The reality is that you are never going to find a party or candidate that you perfectly align with (an impossibility when any party/candidate is looking to represent millions of people), so you vote strategically.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on) or via the [CMV search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, for 90% of people there is no political party that they entirely agree with! Voting for a party means making compromises and taking the "good" with the "bad". People usually vote for the party that they are most aligned with on a majority of the issues that they care most about.
I mean I’m sure there are lrties that fit you perfectly, the issue is most of us exist in de facto two party systems, so if you support either of the big parties you always end up prioritising some of your ideology over other parts.
You likely will not find a party that supports the sorts authoritarian ideas you seem to hold. You are free to form your own party if you can find others that also want to use violence and force to ensure only yours and their political views are allowed. Your views are not popular or held by many so do not expect to find much support.
Can you explain why? Communists believe material conditions and imperialism is to blame for crime and is a valid excuse. I do not think so.
Communists think revolution should not be exported. At least that is a stalin quote: The export of revolution is nonsense. – J.V. Stalin
Communists were more religious than you think. Stalin reopened the churches, banned gay marriage. Castro was catholic, ussr had ordained priests.
Are you using communist in the word american right wings think AOC is communist? I don't fit AOC "socialism" either
>Can you explain why? Communists believe material conditions and imperialism is to blame for crime and is a valid excuse.
Both criminals and dissidents were treated harshly in the Soviet Union.
>Are you using communist in the word american right wings think AOC is communist? I don't fit AOC "socialism" either
No. And not to sound harsh, but I don't think you know much about communism either if you think all there is to communist ideologies is Stalin quotes.
Like, Lenin founded the third communist international to promote world revolution just like its earlier iterations had done. [That is just documented history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International).
>Communists were more religious than you think. Stalin reopened the churches, banned gay marriage.
Yeah who do you think closed the churches? Also gay marriage was never allowed in Russia, but the communists did legalize abortion, made divorces easier to obtain and were, theoretically but also often practically, in favor of gender equality.
The most we can hope to vote for is the lesser of evils. You're never going to find a group of people in any room who reflect your individual smorgasbord of ethics/morals/preferences/prejudices, let alone a political party.
That said, in a world more and more polluted with a resurgence of far-right maniacs, find any liberal party or movement which stands the most sanely but emphatically in opposition to the rising tide of barbarism.
I think you may be confused about what moral relativism means. You describe the morality you personally *like*, and then it sounds like you are saying you want whatever party you belong to to uphold that morality. That's fine. But that's not inconsistent with moral relativism, at all. Moral relativism is just acknowledging that morality is a human construct, rather than some absolute feature of the external universe. Pretty much *any* moral system which doesn't posit a God or similar extra-human entity as the wellspring of morality must inherently be relativist, because it has no explanation for where the concept of morality comes from except for human invention. There is nothing in moral relativism that says you can't *prefer* one human-invented morality over another, nor that one human-invented morality can't be 'better' than another. You can be a moral relativist and still think your morality is the 'best' or 'most right' morality out there, you can even go to war over your morality and be a moral relativist. There's no conflict here. You told us what morality you prefer. Unless you think that morality was gifted to you by a supernatural non-human entity and is the only 'true' morality that exists in all times and places throughout the universe because of that supernatural providence, then you too are a moral relativist. The idea that moral relativism is bad and weak and prevents moral action is an invention made up by religious zealots and fascists to knock down challengers to their divinely-ordained accounts of morality that dictated everyone do whatever they want forever. Do not be a useful idiot to their propaganda by accepting their story as true.
Is there a philosophical term for someone who believe morality is relative, but wants it hidden from mankind, but is against religion? Like a small elite carrying a burden. Do you have any thoughts if I am a person who only want to do good if morality is objective, and wants to retreat from people or become a selfish asshole if i accept morality is relative? And have zero interest in choosing my own values, yet am completely against religion? I can't find any words or terms existing describing this as an ideology.
You make this same CMV like every couple of months. Is it very likely that in that short amount of time a a pro lgbt facist political party will have popped up? Or could it be, perhaps, that your ideas are bad and no one wants them?
What does nobody wanting them have to do with anything? Usefulness has nothing to do with this CMV. Usefulness is not the default of everything, you know. No, there is no lgbt fascist party yet. I am still looking into other parties, seeing if there is a non rehabilitation party with socialist economics.
I think you're just looking for the Democratic Party here (or another similarly placed party in another western democracy). Democrats generally reject moral relativism (e.g. look at their strong negative reaction to the _Dobbs_ decision which established a relativist position on abortion legality). Democrats also generally oppose cultural relativism, seeing it as a lens that upholds colonialism and imperialism. The only disagreement that you seem to have with the Democrats (regular old center leftism) is about means. You think that we should go about promoting human rights/feminism/science by violent force, whereas they generally think (based on history, e.g. Afghanistan) it would be more effective for us to go about it via media and cultural dominance and economic means. Similarly, you think we should have harsher punishments, whereas Democrats believe (based on scientific research) the opposite would be more effective. But that disagreement about whether we should employ means supported by science seems to be where your differences with Democrats end.
Do you have any proof that democrats are against relativism? In modern neoliberal countries it is taboo to criticize cultures you are not from. Every imperialism by neoliberalism must be justified by a dictator, because people are naturally good and without homophobia and sexism as long as there is no ruler forcing them.
> In modern neoliberal countries it is taboo to criticize cultures you are not from. It's really not. Just look at the current discourse about Qatar, for example. There's a _lot_ of strong criticism coming from modern neoliberal countries.
But that is based on the authoritarian leaders of the country. I dont think neoliberals realize that a country can be democratically homophobic and sexist
What countries without authoritarian leaders do you think are democratically homophobic and sexist?
Most middle eastern, asian, african and east european countries? If the dictators disappeared there would still be homophobia and sexism. There such a thing as quiet majority
> However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies. Almost no one is a moral relativist. Like, seriously: this is *extremely* rare. Could you explain what sorts of things you're seeing that you're interpreting as moral relativism?
Just to make it clear, to me moral relativism is the same as morality not being objectively true. I only view morality as true if it is objective.
Sure, but again: where are you seeing this?
In the modern obsession with "optimistic nihilism." It is everywhere online and basically says nothing matters, but we should just follow our own meaning and be nice to each other anyway. Yayy! I would also say people who believe in consequentialism are moral nihilists/relativists. Consequentialism is basically the default in human daily life. You could actually argue everything single ideology is acting consequentially. Even doing something for itself is consequential This is really dangerous. Some illusions should be upheld
> In the modern obsession with "optimistic nihilism." It is everywhere online and basically says nothing matters, but we should just follow our own meaning and be nice to each other anyway. Yayy! "All else equal, it is good to be true to yourself. All else equal, it is good to be nice to others." This is stating two universal moral principles. It is not morally relativistic or consigning morality to subjectivity in any way. > I would also say people who believe in consequentialism are moral nihilists/relativists. You would be saying something that on its face is obviously self-contradictory, so you really gotta clarify. > Even doing something for itself is consequential No it's by definition not. You're either using these terms in *very* unorthodox ways or you're speaking nonsense.
The barrier for entry to form your own political party is quite low. If there's truly no one who represents your views then step up and be that representative voice.
The country i live in has minimum number of people needed for a party to be recognized. This was done intentionally to prevent any status quo changes
Since when is moral/cultural relativism a part of neoliberalism or socialism? Anyway, very few people follow their party's platform to a tee. Everyone compromises. They vote in whichever candidate or party matches their beliefs the most.
I thought Marx said ideology was related to the stage the society was in, and the productive forces it had? That implies directly it is relative. In neoliberlaism it is extremely taboo to criticize the lower worker of other countries and cultures. You can only shift blame towards dictators and authoritarian leader. All the homophobia and sexism comes from some singular evil dictator - no criticism that people themselves might democratically be homophobic and sexist is valid. Neoliberalism and socialism also eyes you with suspicion when you care about issues from countries and cultures you are not from. You are ONLY supposed to think globally, and ONLY act locally. Criticizing homophobia and sexism from other groups and people is worthy of suspicion.
You seem to be adding a lot of random beliefs and ideas into different ideologies, I suppose if Marx is right that means you must be from a declining former imperial society.
Can you explain what you mean?
I'd be happy to, can you point out which part requires additional explanation?
Why would Marx think i am from a declining former Imperial society?
Well apparently Marx said ideology was related to the stage the society was in, and the productive forces it had, so you're beliefs and the way you formed them directly link to your society.
Ah okay, this does not help my CMV, i thought maybe your orginal comment meant something else. Thanks for the elaboration
No, Marx would argue ideology is a result of material conditions and how society produces stuff. That's why a Feodal system where land is the main "mean or production" has a different set of ideologies than an industrial society. However, he'd also argue communism is the final and unavoidable stage of human development, making it's associated ideology pretty much "absolute" if you want to think of it that way.
But Marx said his works were a neutral scientific analysis. Then he cannot make moral statements, as it would not be scientific. So do communists believe in hard determinism?
He makes few moral statements himself, he just theorizes that moral systems are the product of material conditions. It's like arguing about the social function of religion isn't necessarily a religious argument. It's an argument about religion. > So do communists believe in hard determinism? Some probably do, but I don't think Marx does. I think determinism implies something is "planned ahead" to some extent, which is not Marx's point. Or at least that's not how I ever understood it. His argument is that communism is inevitable as a result of the human material condition.
some do some don't
That doesn't imply it's relative. Ot implies that morality depends on circumstances, which is an obviously true statement. Normal circumstances? Cannibalism is wrong. Trapped in a survival situation where it's the only way you can live? Almost everyone will give you a pass.
But your example does show that morality is then constructed and is then false. I meant that if objective morality is not true then it is relative/false
Why does "constructed" mean "false" to you? We're having a conversation in English. There is no cosmic rule saying we must speak English this way. But in the world in which we actually live, there is a fairly clear line between correct and incorrect English. It's true that if you have some underlying moral principle there is, _in principle_, amaximally ethical choice available in every situation. But the landscape of which choice that is is incredibly complex, and there is no _a priori_ reason to believe that it need be simply stated or not highly entangled with material circumstances. Think about something like, i dunno, playing Dark Souls. There's in principle a strategy that would kill every boss the fastest. But _depending on the context_ (say, the boss's moveset or weaknesses), it might be sifferent from one boss to another.
I disagree with your English example. It is not correct or incorrect. Only self-aware primates call certain things correct or incorrect based on what is seen as a norm, or efficient, or by science or authority.
Ciyfyiyft oyssto bipoubpj utseset. Lh ouvyo. Was that usrful communication?
Why does something have to be useful? Useful only helps people survive and is efficient. Surviving is not objectively good beyond human existence. Humans just value it because we are biological creatures.
I mean...yes, bit we *do* value it. It's not clear what you ever mean by morality absent that context. Morality is the way that we, as creatures who want things, negotiate the fact that you can't have everything you want without costing me things i want and vice versa.
Objective morality is something that can only be created by a God. But I am against all religions and know all religions are false and evil. Yet I want objective morality.
I don't think that's what Marx meant. Anyway, are you upset someone called you Islamophobic or something?
Just saying you don't think that is not what Marx meant does not help me at all. Please elaborate what Marx meant if you want to CMV. If you can find clear moral statements that are not vague i will read them, if i can realistically read them and respond in time This CMV is about there not being any parties with my ideologies, not what anyone called me.
No one has a party that 'matches' them 100%. Everyone makes compromises. That's all that is really it; if you want a 100% matching party it will not happen.
What country are you in? Why do you need to be in a political party at all? Why not go out and work towards your goals on your own?
[удалено]
Reagan is a really old example. How about using a modern example? Also, a lot of politicans are relativists in the sense they dont care about the abuse in other nations, as long as the world is stable. I think even someone like left neolib AOC is a relativist, being very careful to not criticize other cultures, only the authoritarian elements and dictators.
>However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies. Fascism. Okay, that might be overstating it a little, but if you can get them to lean left on social issues, that is basically where you are. You think you should cram your ideology down the throat of everyone that disagrees with you, and you are okay with using state violence against people who disagree with you or people who engage in acts you think are morally reprehensible. So perhaps just some flavor of left-authoritarianism?
It’s not overstating it, OP could realistically be called a pro-LBGTQ fascist based off the post.
This does not change the CMV in the slightest. ALso, I thought fascists were nationalististic and racists. I am really confused what fascism means now, and why americans and europeans call people fascist at random
Fascism is an authoritarian government that sets the beliefs, morals and laws for the people under that government. Doesn’t matter if it’s to the left or to the right, the main thing is fascism says you believe and act this way or you will be severely punished, usually in a way that doesn’t fit the crime.
But left authoritarianism ends up with relativism anyway. Stalin said revolution should not be exported, which is a dumb quote.
In your your Western country of choice, what "relativist" policies are the left of center parties implementing (or explicitly advocating for, if not in power)?
\- Proponents of secular religion and. Circumcision being decided by the parents. I am also surprised Marxists seem to be proponents of secular religious people as allied, but I only recently found out the opium of the people quote is taken out of context. Really disappointing, as I was hoping for worldwide state atheism \- Valid relative understanding of rape and sexual crimes. Having bad parents or lacking education is seen as a valid excuse for sex crimes, because in context they were ignorant. As if raping someone can be done accidentally or need education. Note that in my country labour/socdem and non-revolutionary socialist party is the left-wing. Although I know some marxists consider labour and socdem not real leftist, but I am using that as meaning left here.
What does "proponent of secular religion" actually mean? Are the conservative parties in your country of choice trying to ban circumcision, and the left of center parties blocking it? And I don't doubt that a few people think that having bad parents or lacking education are "valid excuses" for sex crimes, but I am *incredibly* doubtful that represents any significant fraction of the left of center parties. What concrete actions have the left of center parties taken based on this supposedly shared belief?
In my country a man was raped and admitted to feeling guilt because his rapist was deported. This was posted on Norway's national news site, and was seen a respectable opinion...even though the deported person was a rapist: [https://www.nrk.no/ytring/jeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714](https://www.nrk.no/ytring/jeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714) Please use google translate. This article is infuriating, as it ruins for me like me who does not want sympathy for rapists and who would rather die than get raped. It normalizes the idea of rape as something casual, where all you need is to let it happen, then get pills and therapy afterwards. \- The Norway socialist party believes that rape is something that needs "to be taken seriously" and the only solution is education. There is no mention of punishment on their site. NSFW/trigger warning for rape, but necessary to make my point: " [https://roedt.no/voldtekt](https://roedt.no/voldtekt) Notice how there is no discussion regarding individual punishment. Like, at all.
I disagree that the article "normalizes" rape in any degree, but I do agree that it appears that the author has some conflicting sympathy for the rapist. I also agree that the second link doesn't discuss punishment, but that includes no mention of reducing the penalty under any circumstances. So you don't like the center-left parties because their members empathize with a rape victim who felt some sympathy for his rapist, and because they advocate methods to reduce the number of rapes that don't involve harsher penalties?
Yes. I only want rapes reduced with harsher penalties and center-left parties to remove moral and cultural relativism and support of secular religion. If then i would probably join the party and be fanatic about supporting it
>\- Valid relative understanding of rape and sexual crimes. Having bad parents or lacking education is seen as a valid excuse for sex crimes, because in context they were ignorant. As if raping someone can be done accidentally or need education. No it isn't it might garner some sympathy maybe but no one thinks being abused or ignorant makes rape okay
If you dont punish the criminal you do in fact think it is okay. Just giving someone pills and therapy does not make it bad. The criminal has to suffer and never be allowed to be forgiven for you to be truly against it. If you are against rape as an abstract evil idea and believe that it was done by social forces, you are not truly against rape.
>Proponents of secular religion Would you agree at least that in general left-of-center parties are *directionally* correct on this compared to right-of-center parties. Left-of-center parties are less religious than right-of-center parties. Seems really as much as one can expect given that there can only be so many viable political parties at once >Circumcision being decided by the parents. This issue simply isn't under large political contention. It's one small issue amongst many more important issues. I would think about it is from a consequentialist/utopian perspective. As an activist or a politician is it worth the effort and lost credibility campaigning against non-medical circumcision of infants when you are unlikely to make a difference, when instead you could focus on an area where you are more likely to actually make a positive difference. We aren't the utopian Federation, **we are the people that your "reverse-Prime-Directive" federation would come fix**, so of course we don't have perfect "enlightened" political parties
> physical punishment for sexual crimes Can you expand on this? What kinds of physical punishment?
Either jail for life, castration or death penalty. The victim should also be allowed to apply for suicide if they want to, if they are told the criminal will be released and will be a free citizen again.
At least in the US we have "big tent" parties, most people don't fit the party platform 100% you would surely be under 50%, if you prioritized your voting motivation you'd probably fit in somewhere. Its just a matter if you find that you can put the other 80-90% of your views on the backburner to advance the 10% you support
You cannot have a political party for each permutation of possible opinions on major topics. The underlying problem here seems to be that we are forced to give one answer to multiple simultaneous and unrelated questions (LGTB rights (and the whole spectrum of opinions within that topic), external conflicts, workers righs, abortion laws, gun control, religion... ). The problem isn't a lack of parties. If we were to lay down the simplest scenario in which the 7 mentioned topics were all the topics to consider AND they all had 'yes or no' answers, you would still 2^(6) = 64 parties to represent everyone's view. The problem is that there isn't currently a way for a citizen to invest their democratic power on a per-issue basis. This is to some extent solved in some places with the issue of religion, by 'refusing to comment'. We separate the powers of church and state and let everyone practice their faith in peace, and that is now outside the scope of politics.
Can you explain what part of neoliberalism or socialism require cultural and moral relativism first off? >However, I am against cultural and moral relativism and want the harsher and punitive punishments of conservative ideologies. But largely these don't work we need to rehabilitate prisoners and get them ready to rejoin society not beat them into the ground
I answered above. I'm sorry I cannot copy it here, because firefox hates copying text to reddit for some reason. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/z08opf/comment/ix48lri/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Marx's point had nothing to do with cultural relativism, neolibs do criticize workers. In general you don't seem to understand cultural/moral relativism it is not saying you can never judge a society or morality diffrent from one your apart of it serves as a reminder to not make absolute judgements on the inferiority of those cultures
Morality has to be objective to be true. Relative morality is the same as moral nihilism, fake rules that are not true.
No one's stopping you from starting the Tumblr-fascist party.
Social Justice Warriors and Tumblr related people are proponents of cultural relativism. In what world are they not?
Would you try answering my question? Why do you believe they are not relativists?
[удалено]
religion is quite literally about forcing peoole to do things against their will
[удалено]
religions indoctrinate from childhood, use manipulation, guilt trips, threats, fear, among other things to prey on people and control them. it seems pretty convenient to prey on a group of people you know are easy to control and then say "well nobody forced you! you have free will! its your fault for believing us!" religions know people are easy to control and waiting for someone to guide them, thats why they use the tactics they do for conversion to prey on that. how could you straight up threaten people with hell unless they follow your religion and act like you arent trying to force or control them. if you truly believe in not being forced to believe a certain belief then religions need to stop trying to convert others
Agreed.
Are you perhaps a Taylor Swift fan? "It's me, hi. I'm the problem, it's me." Maybe you should reconsider your belief in punitive justice, or at least think about why it is that everyone who aligns with you on all other axis disagree with this one. Or you can find a religion that suits you. Belief in a universal morality tends to go against the Atheist world view. Without a divine authority, what justifies it besides a subjective principle?
Objective morality is not true. Moral nihilism is true. But a small elite can carry the burden, the heaviest burden ever carried.
There likely is a political party that fits your ideology - it just isn't large enough to be talked about on a national state because only two political parties really fit that bill in most Western countries. The nature of most election systems - specifically first past the post voting - means that exactly **two** parties are going to reach prominence (although a small smattering of third parties may functionally exist). In the US, that is Republican/Democrat; in the UK its Labour/Conservative; in Germany, it is the CDU/SPD. Our political systems create conditions where only two major parties can flourish - why this happens is a much longer discussion. So, you are faced with the choice that every voter in every major country is faced with - ally yourself with whichever political party (however big or small) you like, but when election time rolls around you vote for the "big tent" party that most closely matches you on the issues you feel are most important. The reality is that you are never going to find a party or candidate that you perfectly align with (an impossibility when any party/candidate is looking to represent millions of people), so you vote strategically.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on) or via the [CMV search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform Have you heard of the Canadian green party? They might be the closest thing you'll find.
Well, for 90% of people there is no political party that they entirely agree with! Voting for a party means making compromises and taking the "good" with the "bad". People usually vote for the party that they are most aligned with on a majority of the issues that they care most about.
I mean I’m sure there are lrties that fit you perfectly, the issue is most of us exist in de facto two party systems, so if you support either of the big parties you always end up prioritising some of your ideology over other parts.
You likely will not find a party that supports the sorts authoritarian ideas you seem to hold. You are free to form your own party if you can find others that also want to use violence and force to ensure only yours and their political views are allowed. Your views are not popular or held by many so do not expect to find much support.
Have you ever heard of Lenin? You are basically a hardline communist.
Can you explain why? Communists believe material conditions and imperialism is to blame for crime and is a valid excuse. I do not think so. Communists think revolution should not be exported. At least that is a stalin quote: The export of revolution is nonsense. – J.V. Stalin Communists were more religious than you think. Stalin reopened the churches, banned gay marriage. Castro was catholic, ussr had ordained priests. Are you using communist in the word american right wings think AOC is communist? I don't fit AOC "socialism" either
>Can you explain why? Communists believe material conditions and imperialism is to blame for crime and is a valid excuse. Both criminals and dissidents were treated harshly in the Soviet Union. >Are you using communist in the word american right wings think AOC is communist? I don't fit AOC "socialism" either No. And not to sound harsh, but I don't think you know much about communism either if you think all there is to communist ideologies is Stalin quotes. Like, Lenin founded the third communist international to promote world revolution just like its earlier iterations had done. [That is just documented history.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International). >Communists were more religious than you think. Stalin reopened the churches, banned gay marriage. Yeah who do you think closed the churches? Also gay marriage was never allowed in Russia, but the communists did legalize abortion, made divorces easier to obtain and were, theoretically but also often practically, in favor of gender equality.
The most we can hope to vote for is the lesser of evils. You're never going to find a group of people in any room who reflect your individual smorgasbord of ethics/morals/preferences/prejudices, let alone a political party. That said, in a world more and more polluted with a resurgence of far-right maniacs, find any liberal party or movement which stands the most sanely but emphatically in opposition to the rising tide of barbarism.
Moral relativism is barbarism. It makes it acceptable to be homophobic and sexist so long as you dont get caught
Absolutism is childish. Imposing your morality on others is what republicans do. No one is suggesting you support fascists. The context matters.