That is very interesting !
Aside from the core notion (that i politically need), I never dived really in those philosophical subjects, but your post made me take a searching journey because there was something tickling me with those notion and I didn't know what. Its seems like I figured it out:
I'm a materialist, as I believe that everything in our universe and beyond is the product of material and physical interactions. I believe that is the most truthfull way to see the world. This is what shaped me as a militant and the reason why I have all those political values.
So.. philosophically, I'm also mostly a realist. Since I believe in an objective reality.
Now.. through those research, I tried to understand what type of relativism you were talking about and it seems like what you are calling "global relativism" is in reality "moral relativism".
Moral relativism seems to be categorize in three categories (wiki):
- Descriptive : Different cultures can or have different moral standards. Decriptive relativism do no necessarily advocate for the tolerance of all behavior.
- Meta-ethical : Same things but there is no "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" as those concept are relative to traditions, convictions or practices of an individual or a group of people.
- Normative : same as the two others but its the belief that we must tolerate those behavior even when they goes against our moral standards.
I went farther and I looked at the opposition of moral relativism which is "moral universalism. Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics applies universally regardless of culture race, sex, religion, nationality etc.
So its seems that what you are really talking about is the Normative moral relativism, since the other two (descriptive and meta-ethical) are widely considered by human sciences as legitimate.
And I agree. Normative moral relativism, is simply not a reasonnable position to hold if we seek for the development of the human specie. At least under most circounstances.
This is the case of Noland:
Now, Noland here was lucky, because the girl wanted to live, but in real life, most of the time, dying in such a matter would be an honor, and while there would be obvious fear, there would also be a great will to die.
So, acting against the cultural behavior and not accepting it would result in reality in a big load of individual and social consequences.
This is the case of Toda Mariko in Shogun. (SPOILER for "Shogun") To give you a context, Mariko is a character whose father was completely "dishonored" during feodal japan. She lived in cultural and individual shame all her life. She seeked for only one thing : death through Seppuku.
Now.. what happens if we refuse the normative moral relativism and refuse her this death like John Blackthorne (an english who ended up in Japan) seemed to be against ? Well, a great deal of self inflicting pain, so much that she would be unable to live happily
In reality, the only solution in this case is the normative vision. Here, Mariko was finally granted the right to commit Seppuku, but the one supposed to accompagny her in the process refused to show himself, so , out of love for her, John decided to help her despite being completely against the process:
This means that there are indeed cases when the normative approach is needed.
In fine, its seems like moral universalism or anti realism are not really pertinent and congruent approach in regards to reality. And it appears that there is not really a good and a bad kind of moral relativism. Indeed, most of the time, the best will be to refuse the normative way of thinking, but sometimes, we need to understand the implication of such a refusal of the cultural differences.
I learned a few things tonight. That's cool.
Yup, mostly.
If not, you wouldn't be going against trans rights..
Riot are not pretty mate.
Its not about "who respects who". Its about "what to do if not that ?"
Its very easy to say that riot are problematics when you don't face systemic violence or oppression all your life or live in fear of being shot by a dumb policeman. The reality is that the american system is broken and do not allow real change in those matter. So yeah, people, get angry, people get tired, and so they riot and they are legitimate to do so.
Of course, no violence against civilian is justified. But those things happen and the best way to avoid them is not to cry about those who are tired of the oppression but to make a change for those riot not to be needed in the first place.
Riots scare the powers. They do make a difference, so unless you have a better option or you have a way to bring a real leftist party to the table, please, keep out.
Those rioters were aiming to do harm to ELECTED OFFICIALS mate. Again, you are comparing things that are not comparable. Its was not a riot, it was an insurrection. Without those barricades, there would have been much more dead guys.
Stop listening to far right and ignorant propaganda FFS.
