Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Just because a person or group does something doesn't make it right. Harming another person against their will in any situation other than self-defense is wrong.
The Samurai of Feudal Japan engaged in the practice of tsujigiri, a verb meaning "to try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer." In order to avoid dishonor when in battle, the Samurai had to ensure that the sword could cut an enemy from one shoulder to the opposite flank, completing a proper cut. In order to aavoid the potential dishonor in combat, they would lie in wait at a crossroad, and test the sword on a chance wayfarer. Moral relativism does not allow us to criticize that practice because it was acccepted in the culture of the time. If we had asked the wayfarer what the thought of the practice, he would give us a very different opinion. However, because of the Samurai's status in society, his opinion was what mattered most.
Similarly, slavery was acceptable in American culture for hundreds of years. Simply because it was acceptable does not mean that it was the right thing to do at the time.
This week in Iran, a 16-year-old girl was hanged because she was caught having sex with an unmarried man. Simply because this is accepted in their culture does not make it right.
|
I don't agree with your conclusion that moral relativism results in a lack of one's ability to criticize a given practice.
What it does call for is understanding the context wherein the behavior occurs. You did that when you explicated the reasons underpinning the practice of the Samurai, and concluded that he thought them moral.
But you were still able to criticize the practice by involving the reasons why a wayfarer would or should not be subject to being sliced in half. You based your criticism on the wayfarer's right or belief or however you want to label it not to be violated against his will.
Unfortunately, either intentionally or not, you dismissed that basis by claiming it didn't internally matter due to the social hierarchy at the time rather than allowing that such a criiticism should resonate deeply with a libertarian (with it's emphasis on individual rights over the collective social order). I think you would benefit by revisiting that issue and incorporating the ability to conduct external criticisms based on an understanding of the internal social understandings into your analysis of morality.