bren...
I will qoute William J. Talbott, Associate Professor
at the University of Washington in Seattle:
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/
"I think there is a kind of moral imperialism that is morally
objectionable: I would be a moral imperialist, in this
morally objectionable sense, if I held that anyone who disagrees
with me on a moral question must be wrong. To avoid moral
imperialism, I believe that we must acknowledge our fallibility
and always be open to the possibility that our moral judgments
are mistaken. But that does not mean that we should always
retract our moral judgments whenever anyone disagrees or that
we should limit our moral claims only to those who agree with
us. I will say of those who always retract their moral
judgments whenever someone disagrees them or limit their
moral claims to those who agree with them that their moral
judgments are wishy-washy. One of the goals of this chapter
is to explain how we can make universal moral judgments that
are neither wishy-washy nor morally imperialistic."...
.."One of my main goals in this chapter is to try to undo some
of that damage by explaining why it is reasonable to regard
at least some of our moral judgments as reliable, though not
infallible, and why the acknowledgment of our own fallibility
does not make it unreasonable, at least in some situations,
to hold that those who disagree with us are mistaken. The
view I defend avoids moral imperialism because it is
symmetric: It not only explains how I can be in a position
to criticize the moral judgments of others as mistaken; it
also explains how others can be in a position to criticize
mine as mistaken."...
and, regarding cultural relativism:
"WHY CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS MISTAKEN ABOUT EXTERNAL NORMS"
"If it really was morally wrong for Western colonizers to
forcibly impose their religious practices on native
populations, that suggests that native peoples had some
sort of right to engage in their traditional religious
practices that was violated by the Western colonizers.
But if there is such a right, it would seem to be a
universal right, applicable to all cultures. If
Western colonizers ought not to have imposed their
religious practices on native peoples, that moral
insight cannot be captured within a thoroughgoing
relativistic framework that denies any universal
moral standards. To see why not, suppose that you
came upon a 16th century Spanish Conquistador
threatening to kill any native who did not convert
to Catholicism. Appalled, you might try to persuade
him that the natives had their own religion and customs,
which should be respected by outsiders."
"Here is one reply that the Conquistador might make:
You may come from a culture with a norm of tolerance,
which explains why you ought to respect native
religion and customs; but my culture has no such norm
of tolerance. As a matter of fact, my culture has a
norm of intolerance, according to which we are expected
to forcibly convert those of different religions to our
religion or kill them. Surely, you would not presume to
impose your norms (of tolerance) on someone whose culture
does not have a norm of tolerance!"
"A cultural relativist who holds that each culture should
be free to act on its own norms would find the
Conquistador’s reply unanswerable. That is because the
strongest norm of tolerance that can be justified within
a relativist framework is what I refer to as a norm of
Wishy-Washy Tolerance: Members of cultures with a norm
of tolerance ought to be tolerant; but it is
inappropriate to apply a norm of tolerance to members
of intolerant cultures."
See this page for the entire fascinating dissertation:
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/hr.htm
As to whether "it possible to impose a moral point
of view in the international market place that
can escape the criticism of moral imperialism,
yet carry enough weight not to be considered
mere cutlural relativism", I would suggest that
certain countries, who utilize child labor and
conditions which appall the average American,
have certainly succeeded in imposing their view,
though not entirely without protest, into the
international market place. Perhaps they have
escaped the criticism of moral imperialism simply
because their economical, if immoral, labor pool
is in demand by the greedy, more than being
imposed by them. And while there are protests
and boycotts by the morally sensitive, the
economics of their products and services have,
thus far, outweighed the objections.
If I can be of further help, please post a
clarification before you rate the answer.
There are 30 other references arrived at from
the search below, but none exhibited the
clarity and objectivity of William Talbot's
discourse.
Searches done, via Google:
"moral imperialism" + "cultural relativism"
://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22moral+imperialism%22+%2B+%22cultural+relativism%22
sublime1-ga |
,
0 Comments
)