The last point is insightful. The people I know who talk in terms of this type of ontological relativism have an affinity for traditional native societies, and seem motivated to avoid having their worldviews trivialized. Of course, the reason they feel protective about these cultures is because they're vulnerable to the power of developed societies, a power that arguably comes from a better understanding of our shared reality, at least in some aspects.
So, interesting question here. I've noticed that these champions of marginalized societies generally like said marginalized groups because of their problems, not their virtues. For example, we are seeing widespread anti-Israel protest thingies right now, and they have much to say about the suffering of the Palestinians, but what good things have you heard the protesters mention in relation to the wholesome and precious Palestinian way of life?
If you're like me, the answer is "almost nothing," which is really disrespectful to the Arabs of the Levant if you think about it for a second.
This leads me to believe that much of the relativistic compassion protest thingies are much more about opposing something than supporting something. An "anti" without a corresponding "pro."
I guess it depends on who you talk with. One of the people I know is concerned about Native American cultures, and it sounds like he's spent considerable time embedded with them, with a lot of positive things to say about their worldview and ceremonies. Another met people in South American indigenous societies when doing missionary work and developed lifelong friendships. Granted, I've interacted with plenty of people online for whom it's much more of an abstract anti-colonialist thing.
I know people who went native somewhere and genuinely admire the new culture - many in fact - but I don't know any of them to position themselves as champions of the defenseless little lambs. For me, this is pretty easy to explain. Most people don't portray folks they respect as defenseless, little, or lamb-like.
I imagine self-determination is part of it. We certainly want to have the ability to make our own decisions, and to do that, we'd need to have certain rights.
I meant that comment for Wyrd, but here's what I'm trying to say.
If making sovereignty, self-determiniation, equality etc into a commodity cheapens it, what if we make the commodities quite literally expensive? Ie, you only get political equality - and I agree that equality isn't a very coherent concept and here just means "privileges traditionally given to citizens in the United States" - if you can pay a million dollars.
Such, it seems to me, would make equality very much a commodity, and a luxury commodity. It would also do the opposite of "cheapening" the concept. It would also, presumably, be bad. And if it is bad, we're faced with the problem of explaining why "cheapening" is undesirable in the sense of cheap commodities.
The last point is insightful. The people I know who talk in terms of this type of ontological relativism have an affinity for traditional native societies, and seem motivated to avoid having their worldviews trivialized. Of course, the reason they feel protective about these cultures is because they're vulnerable to the power of developed societies, a power that arguably comes from a better understanding of our shared reality, at least in some aspects.
Yes, that's right, and the sweep of relativism goes beyond this specific motivation.
So, interesting question here. I've noticed that these champions of marginalized societies generally like said marginalized groups because of their problems, not their virtues. For example, we are seeing widespread anti-Israel protest thingies right now, and they have much to say about the suffering of the Palestinians, but what good things have you heard the protesters mention in relation to the wholesome and precious Palestinian way of life?
If you're like me, the answer is "almost nothing," which is really disrespectful to the Arabs of the Levant if you think about it for a second.
This leads me to believe that much of the relativistic compassion protest thingies are much more about opposing something than supporting something. An "anti" without a corresponding "pro."
I guess it depends on who you talk with. One of the people I know is concerned about Native American cultures, and it sounds like he's spent considerable time embedded with them, with a lot of positive things to say about their worldview and ceremonies. Another met people in South American indigenous societies when doing missionary work and developed lifelong friendships. Granted, I've interacted with plenty of people online for whom it's much more of an abstract anti-colonialist thing.
I know people who went native somewhere and genuinely admire the new culture - many in fact - but I don't know any of them to position themselves as champions of the defenseless little lambs. For me, this is pretty easy to explain. Most people don't portray folks they respect as defenseless, little, or lamb-like.
Jerry Coyne just posted an epic essay about this regarding the teaching of "indigenous ways of knowing" in the science classroom.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/02/11/us-follows-new-zealand-lets-teach-indigenous-knowledge-in-the-classroom/
(Oops, not "just". It was in February. I only "just" learned about it this week.)
I wonder if our desire for political rights and social rights doesn't come from our basic urge for sovereignty and self-determination.
I really like that line about how the product was cheapened. Indeed. It's the inevitable consequence of making something a commodity.
I liked that line too.
I imagine self-determination is part of it. We certainly want to have the ability to make our own decisions, and to do that, we'd need to have certain rights.
What if it's a luxury commodity? What if equality is something you only get after paying a million dollars, for example?
I'm not sure I follow. I would think having to pay a million dollars would preclude equality.
I meant that comment for Wyrd, but here's what I'm trying to say.
If making sovereignty, self-determiniation, equality etc into a commodity cheapens it, what if we make the commodities quite literally expensive? Ie, you only get political equality - and I agree that equality isn't a very coherent concept and here just means "privileges traditionally given to citizens in the United States" - if you can pay a million dollars.
Such, it seems to me, would make equality very much a commodity, and a luxury commodity. It would also do the opposite of "cheapening" the concept. It would also, presumably, be bad. And if it is bad, we're faced with the problem of explaining why "cheapening" is undesirable in the sense of cheap commodities.
Oops, sorry about that! I get confused about the comments layout on Substack. I'll let Wyrd respond.