This is a post I originally planned to be on my personal blog, but never actually put up. I modified it to fit this class.
For those who don't know, the Dothraki (pronounced Dawth-rocky) are a clan of peoples from the show Game of Thrones. Generally, the culture of the Dothraki are stereotypical, tribalistic, uncivilized, and violent. It is a warrior based culture, where honor is earned through skill in battle.
Through a lot of questions we touch on in philosophy however, this culture becomes very interesting. More specifically, looking at it related to our discussion in class about cultural relativism, this culture raises a lot of questions.
First I'll go a little more in-depth with some of their cultural practices. The Dothraki are a conquering culture; they do a lot of battling, even with each other. You gain rank in the tribe by winning more in battle. The physical sign of this status is the length of their hair, which stays in a braid; a battle is lost when your braid is cut off, so (obviously) those with longer hair have gone longer without losing a battle (Often having your braid cut off is irrelevant, because you're almost always killed directly after; however in the few moments of life you have without your braid, its considered a massive dishonor).
Weddings are the other relevant part of the Dothraki culture. They're spontaneous. They happen in a matter of minutes, and are largely random. When a man wants a woman (yes, it is a largely male-dominated culture) they have this highly sexualized dance (they may even be having sex during it, I don't actually know). If another male had his eyes on the same woman, he will push the man off and they will fight to the death. The woman marries the victor. The wedding is that dance and that battle. Afterwards, the wedding is complete and they're married.
I find thinking about this culture interesting because- very simply- this is just the way it is in that culture. Every member of the Dothraki grow up and learn these customs and live by and embrace these customs. It is just accepted that the price of losing a battle is death. It is seen by all as perfectly okay, including the loser. The loser does not fight after their braid has been cut off, because- through their own customs- this means their life has lost its honor and they are deserving of death. They are simply okay with it. Similarly, the women marry the victor because that's how it is. They agree to it, they have (presumably) no desire otherwise (for being the wife of a great warrior is a great honor itself) and side with the victor simply because they won and because their culture says so.
Now most of us deem murder (I will define this as murder- it isn't necessary that the loser dies after their braid is cut, yet the victor kills them anyway) and this sort of limit on women's freedom morally wrong. Most of us would say that a more civilized society or culture would not hold these practices, and a more civilized society would encourage the Dothraki to leave behind these barbaric customs.
But... Should they? It should be known I am largely against cultural relativism- Hitler and slavery are in the right under this theory. But in this case it seems somewhat different. EVERY MEMBER has agreed to a sort of social/cultural contract in which these are the ways things are. I would use the phrase "these are the rules," but it's stronger than that; these practices are the beliefs each member of the culture holds. So if a member loses a battle and concedes to death- even believes themselves that they should in fact die, why should we say otherwise? This is a topic we touched on in class- self harm related to cultural relativism (there may have been an exact term but I don't remember it), and it seems as if one is completely content with the consequences- even death as in this case- intervening is unnecessary. In fact, it may even be wrong to intervene based on an argument stemming from the idea that the best death is the one you choose.
I suppose the larger point of this is that while cultural relativism as a whole can't work, cultures in which everyone is 100% content with the customs and roles (and these customs aren't forced on anyone outside the culture)- as in the case of the Dothraki- make it questionable whether there is anything morally wrong going on with their practices. If someone were against the practices but forced into it by the culture, that's different and an easy question to answer. But more difficult is this one in which no one is against what's happening despite it being against what most people outside the culture consider moral, and whether or not those practices are then morally wrong. I say they are not, but it's intriguing and interesting to think about, and I'd be interested in hearing other reasonings.
I must say, I was a little surprised when I saw the title :)
ReplyDeleteSo the crux of the topic is "if everyone agreed to it, is it immoral?"
To me, this stems from the larger debate of whether cultural/moral relativism is valid and sound. And that in turn stems from the even more fundamental debate on what morality is and where it comes from.
Naturally, a proponent of cultural relativism would say no culture has an inherent moral superiority to another. This applies to cultures of one, aka individuals. From where I stand, I see that a cultural relativist must concede that even if he/she strongly dislikes the practices of another culture, he/she does not have an inherently "better" moral system.
Of course, all subjective theories must also concede that there is, in fact, one objective moral truth - that all moral truths are subjective, EXCEPT for the moral truth that all moral truths are subjective. Given this, it is usually taken to imply that all our moral beliefs are arbitrary and have no meaningful comparisons to each other, similar to comparing favorite colors. This also implies there's no meaningful way to define progress, at least not objectively. Any such movement would only be one culture imposing its arbitrary preferences over another.
This seems to fly against our intuitions. Our beliefs are not truly arbitrary, they are based on many things, like instincts, experiences, and reason. We believe that progress is real and moral comparisons are possible and meaningful. Logically speaking, it could also be said that even allowing cultural relativism, one still ought to be consistent with one's beliefs, and not act as to be counterproductive. If I want to eat a donut, I should not not eat a donut, or act in a way that would make it harder for me to eat a donut.
So one question is, what makes it morally wrong for a culture to impose its will on another, unwilling culture, given cultural relativism is true? Sure, it's bad if you're the victim, but if you're the dominating culture, and you believe that it's moral to subjugate non-compliants, then you ought to act consistent with your beliefs. In that sense, there's not much of a difference between the two cases you mentioned.
Following Kantian or consequentialist arguments, laws of morality may be like laws of nature, absolute, driven by reason and mathematics. Act only in a way that won't make what you intend to do impossible, or taking the limit to infinity or the universe itself, you can only end up with x, y, z imperatives, etc. But this seems to take the semantics of the word "morality" out of the equation. Or does it? Does it threaten us in some way to think that our imperatives are rooted in the same, common, logical sources? Perhaps we want to cling to the notion that our beliefs, preferences, and imperatives as sentient beings are partly inexplicable.
On a more prima facie note, I would probably say... are the people all agreeing based on the same knowledge? Would they think differently with more knowledge? Do their beliefs and actions undermine their own goals?
It's a fascinating topic to be sure, whether morality comes from hypothetical (voluntary/arbitrary) imperatives or categorical, absolute ones. Seems most people blend it all together in a hodgepodge soup, which doesn't help. And now I have a headache.
Sort of building on the previous response here. My first concern with it is the idea that people are 100% "content" and understanding what the cause is and what the effect is. Is the cause that people are 100% content, so that creates the effect of the law? Or is the cause that there is this set of laws, and therefore people are effectively 100% content? If it's the latter, then it implies that at least some of the people might choose a different set of laws if they felt that there truly was another option, especially if they were born with multiple options. It is a similar concern to female genital mutilation. Many women who undergo it say they consent to it and actually want it. But does that make it the morally (or practically) best thing for them? It seems like it is objectively not, and that, given different circumstances they would likely choose not to do it, and they would be better off for it. So in summary I think a major problem is that law may be dictating consent, instead of the other way around.
ReplyDelete