The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and tread into some very dangerous territory, possibly even make a few people really pissed off at me. I'd like to stress before I go further that Nazi's are bad and I'm not defending the atrocities committed. That said Nazi Germany was a good thing for those that didn’t fall under its oppressive heel. If you weren’t Jewish, black or gay (or friends with any of the above) you got to experience a country rise to become a major industrial power at a time when the rest of the world was coping with a massive economic depression. The point is perspective; sure you can point to the targeted minorities who had to suffer in order for the rest of the country to prosper but then consider the poor kids working in sweatshops to make those purdy runners you’re wearing(as an example; there are several more). Corporate America makes all kinds of cash on unfair trade practices that force smaller third world countries into poverty. Check out a documentary called the Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation for more detail on this; I’ll point out that corporate America is not solely to blame. If one wants to say better does that mean you consider equally the prosperity and suffering? If so I really don’t think one could call American culture any better than most tyrannical powers; the only difference is that the suffering we cause is generally kept outside our borders.
*Edit - I just browsed my link and realized that the article doesn't go into as much detail as the film itself on the abuse of 3rd world nations; I'll find some better examples and repost later.
Novus on
I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
I think the point is that using current moral values to judge previous cultures can be wrong. The thing about Nazi Germany is that in 50-60 years I'd say current morals can more or less be applied. (At the same time, there are plenty of things from that period that you could say "well things were just different back then". Nazi Death Camps however.... not so much)
When you are talking about a culture that existed 1000 years ago (or whatever) it gets a little more difficult.
Like the Azteks had rituals of human sacrifice. Do you judge them based on current ideals? It doesn't make sense to.
Why not judge them on current ideals?
Sure, it may not have been bad for the time or place, but that's just saying this piece of shit doesn't smell as bad as that piece of shit. It's all still shit.
Do you judge them based on current ideals? It doesn't make sense to.
Sure it does. If it were to exist today, it would be a shitty culture. If America existed as it does today back then, America would be greatly superior.
But it doesn't exist today.
What would you say of ancient rome? There are many, many things you could say about them that would make them a "shitty" culture. But back in the day they were "THE" culture to be.
Sure, compared to the other cultures of the time, I'm sure they were tip-top.
Doesn't mean we can't say they had a lot of undesirable shit going on, and doesn't mean we can't say (and can't judge) that our society is better than ancient Roman society.
You know, I think I agree with you.
What seemed wrong to me was making a moral judgement. Ie. saying that romans were evil because they had slaves (no one did that, just an example of how I was reasoning).
They are related, they are not the same. Culture is so much more. I can find a definition I use, but do I really have to? I do not consider Nazism a culture similar to the Arabic or Western culture.
The Nazi German "government" was a manifestation of Nazi culture. They're inextricable. One is larger than the other, but they're still inextricable.
Do you judge them based on current ideals? It doesn't make sense to.
Sure it does. If it were to exist today, it would be a shitty culture. If America existed as it does today back then, America would be greatly superior.
But it doesn't exist today.
What would you say of ancient rome? There are many, many things you could say about them that would make them a "shitty" culture. But back in the day they were "THE" culture to be.
Sure, compared to the other cultures of the time, I'm sure they were tip-top.
Doesn't mean we can't say they had a lot of undesirable shit going on, and doesn't mean we can't say (and can't judge) that our society is better than ancient Roman society.
You know, I think I agree with you.
What seemed wrong to me was making a moral judgement. Ie. saying that romans were evil because they had slaves (no one did that, just an example of how I was reasoning).
Yeah, I'm not gonna say their evil. But are we better off today with our culture then with theirs? Fuck ya.
I know what you mean, but it's still a grotesque oversimplification. It's akin to saying "North Korea's not a bd place to live, provided you are Kim Jong-Il."
They are related, they are not the same. Culture is so much more. I can find a definition I use, but do I really have to? I do not consider Nazism a culture similar to the Arabic or Western culture.
The Nazi German "government" was a manifestation of Nazi culture. They're inextricable. One is larger than the other, but they're still inextricable.
I think I agree with Loren. One culture can be judged to be better than another given a list of traits that are most desirable for a culture to have. If you identify 10 points that are important for a culture to achieve (racial equality, low crime, women's rights, high standard of living, extensive support for art, participation in government, etc.) and one culture does better than another at most of the really important ones, you can say that Culture A is better than Culture B.
The debate then becomes which attributes of a culture are the most important to create a meaningful prioritized list.
Then you probably have to look at why you're doing such a thing.
Culture == Government regulations, now? o_O
I dunno, does it? I didn't make any remark on that.
I may be misunderstanding something, I've bolded out the part that made me think that you were basing your views on a culture on what the laws are in that specific region...
In this very thread, people have pointed to examples of how religion affects several of those things independent of government. A religion saying "stone women who are unfaithful" is a knock against women's rights, for example. Other than the government defining what is a crime, I don't think the government has to have much control over any of those things for them to be issues in a culture.
That being said, the government of an area has a huge impact on the culture of a given area. Through legislation, good or bad, it can control culture deeply. There's not double equals between them, but there is a non-trivial relationship.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and tread into some very dangerous territory, possibly even make a few people really pissed off at me. I'd like to stress before I go further that Nazi's are bad and I'm not defending the atrocities committed. That said Nazi Germany was a good thing for those that didn’t fall under its oppressive heel. If you weren’t Jewish, black or gay (or friends with any of the above) you got to experience a country rise to become a major industrial power at a time when the rest of the world was coping with a massive economic depression.
jewish, black, gay or a member of any non-axis nation. in other words about 97% of the world's population. Dresden carpet bombing is what it netted them for their 7 good years of economic freedom. It was not good for anyone except possibly the upper class who stole permanent wealth at any point in time i dont see how it's really up for discussion.
I think I agree with Loren. One culture can be judged to be better than another given a list of traits that are most desirable for a culture to have. If you identify 10 points that are important for a culture to achieve (racial equality, low crime, women's rights, high standard of living, extensive support for art, participation in government, etc.) and one culture does better than another at most of the really important ones, you can say that Culture A is better than Culture B.
The debate then becomes which attributes of a culture are the most important to create a meaningful prioritized list.
Then you probably have to look at why you're doing such a thing.
The points you establish as desirable are only desirable because your culture or subculture finds them desirable.
What people don't want to seem to admit is that cultural relativism is pretty much the same as moral relativism. From a purely objective standpoint, yes, it's all relative, but you have to decide where you stand and what values you see as important, and that is a subjective decision.
Dude, do you not see how culture and laws are related?
They are related, they are not the same.
It sounds like we agree. I never said they were the same.
Culture is so much more. I can find a definition I use, but do I really have to? I do not consider Nazism a culture similar to the Arabic or Western culture.
I was inexact when I initially brought "Nazis" up, but we can certainly talk about the culture of Nazi Germany, which is what I was referring to (and made clear in a separate post).
Not making moral judgements, but didn't the Nazis basically completely reform Germany from being a devastated wasteland into a military-industrial juggernaut?
You could make the argument that Nazi culture was a culture of brutal reformation, almost nationwide cannibalism that was necessary for the survival of Germany, but that the Nazi culture itself was not sustainable.
Remember, I said no moral judgements. Obviously they were "evil".
In this very thread, people have pointed to examples of how religion affects several of those things independent of government. A religion saying "stone women who are unfaithful" is a knock against women's rights, for example. Other than the government defining what is a crime, I don't think the government has to have much control over any of those things for them to be issues in a culture.
That being said, the government of an area has a huge impact on the culture of a given area. Through legislation, good or bad, it can control culture deeply. There's not double equals between them, but there is a non-trivial relationship.
See, I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing that up.
I do have the feeling this thread went horribly off-topic, I was hoping for some Clash of the Civilizations talk, but instead we're talking about Hitler. I don't think I can contribute to this, at all.
I think I agree with Loren. One culture can be judged to be better than another given a list of traits that are most desirable for a culture to have. If you identify 10 points that are important for a culture to achieve (racial equality, low crime, women's rights, high standard of living, extensive support for art, participation in government, etc.) and one culture does better than another at most of the really important ones, you can say that Culture A is better than Culture B.
The debate then becomes which attributes of a culture are the most important to create a meaningful prioritized list.
Then you probably have to look at why you're doing such a thing.
The points you establish as desirable are only desirable because your culture or subculture finds them desirable.
What people don't want to seem to admit is that cultural relativism is pretty much the same as moral relativism. From a purely objective standpoint, yes, it's all relative, but you have to decide where you stand and what values you see as important, and that is a subjective decision.
This seems fair, given how much of a culture is probably related to morals. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to conclude that a culture that comes closer to achieving the "best" oberall morality is objectively better. If, however, morality is subjective, a conclusion on which culture is best will be subjective as well.
I think I agree with Loren. One culture can be judged to be better than another given a list of traits that are most desirable for a culture to have. If you identify 10 points that are important for a culture to achieve (racial equality, low crime, women's rights, high standard of living, extensive support for art, participation in government, etc.) and one culture does better than another at most of the really important ones, you can say that Culture A is better than Culture B.
The debate then becomes which attributes of a culture are the most important to create a meaningful prioritized list.
Then you probably have to look at why you're doing such a thing.
The points you establish as desirable are only desirable because your culture or subculture finds them desirable.
What people don't want to seem to admit is that cultural relativism is pretty much the same as moral relativism. From a purely objective standpoint, yes, it's all relative, but you have to decide where you stand and what values you see as important, and that is a subjective decision.
Oh, I agree. Culture and Morals are pretty much intrinsically linked in these cases.
Then again, I have absolutely no problem saying morals and culture are NOT completely relative (ie - there are some things that are wrong, regardless of what your culture is).
I think I agree with Loren. One culture can be judged to be better than another given a list of traits that are most desirable for a culture to have. If you identify 10 points that are important for a culture to achieve (racial equality, low crime, women's rights, high standard of living, extensive support for art, participation in government, etc.) and one culture does better than another at most of the really important ones, you can say that Culture A is better than Culture B.
The debate then becomes which attributes of a culture are the most important to create a meaningful prioritized list.
Then you probably have to look at why you're doing such a thing.
The points you establish as desirable are only desirable because your culture or subculture finds them desirable.
What people don't want to seem to admit is that cultural relativism is pretty much the same as moral relativism. From a purely objective standpoint, yes, it's all relative, but you have to decide where you stand and what values you see as important, and that is a subjective decision.
This seems fair, given how much of a culture is probably related to morals. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to conclude that a culture that comes closer to achieving the "best" oberall morality is objectively better. If, however, morality is subjective, a conclusion on which culture is best will be subjective as well.
As far as I've seen, the only things people seem to argue endlessly about with regards to culture are moral issues. Everything else is either unimportant - chopsticks vs forks - or can be objectively analyzed - successful vs unsuccessful economy.
Evil Multifarious on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
What I love about Western culture and view as an aspect that sets it above Arabic culture is that Western culture always knows how to evolve and change. It's very malleable and adjusts to the realities of our time. Western culture is moving forward.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
What I love about Western culture and view as an aspect that sets it above Arabic culture is that Western culture always knows how to evolve and change. It's very malleable and adjusts to the realities of our time. Western culture is moving forward.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
Interesting point!
On a related note, I've heard someone criticize the use of the term "fundamentalist Islam," on the grounds that Islam is automatically fundamentalist in its theology.
Similarly, I've seen the argument before that Islam has not yet gone through its "Reformation" yet, and so isn't really a Modern idea (in the sense of Modernism).
Has anyone ever heard these ideas before, and/or can you corroborate them?
What I love about Western culture and view as an aspect that sets it above Arabic culture is that Western culture always knows how to evolve and change. It's very malleable and adjusts to the realities of our time. Western culture is moving forward.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
I would question your knowledge of Arabic culture if you think it's stagnant. Just look at the past 100 years. Huge changes.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
What I love about Western culture and view as an aspect that sets it above Arabic culture is that Western culture always knows how to evolve and change. It's very malleable and adjusts to the realities of our time. Western culture is moving forward.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
I would question your knowledge of Arabic culture if you think it's stagnant. Just look at the past 100 years. Huge changes.
Not counting Turkey, which one could argue has always leaned more toward the West, what do you mean specifically?
Yes I believe you can judge cultures. I go off a list of criteria such as how do they treat people? Do they maximise good and minimise evil while increasing freedom? Quite frankly I find the idea of moral relativism (culture and morals are pretty strongly tied) downright despicable. Saying oh it’s okay that they kill gays and treat women like property I see as bi-proxy support of these cultures.
Yes I believe you can judge cultures. I go off a list of criteria such as how do they treat people? Do they maximise good and minimise evil while increasing freedom? Quite frankly I find the idea of moral relativism (culture and morals are pretty strongly tied) downright despicable. Saying oh it’s okay that they kill gays and treat women like property I see as bi-proxy support of these cultures.
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
Culture may not be universal but basic human decency is.
If your culture celebrate barbarism, you forfit your argument on the ground of going against what humanity has been striving for all throughout its existance.
Yes I believe you can judge cultures. I go off a list of criteria such as how do they treat people? Do they maximise good and minimise evil while increasing freedom? Quite frankly I find the idea of moral relativism (culture and morals are pretty strongly tied) downright despicable. Saying oh it’s okay that they kill gays and treat women like property I see as bi-proxy support of these cultures.
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
The problem with relativism is not in its truth/falseness. Obviously no cultural or moral system is objectively "better," because culture and values and morality exist only as subjective concepts. The problem with any form of relativism is how useful it is. Complete relativism is pretty useless, on par with "but what if we're in the matrix, maaaan?"
Thus, the only way IMO to approach an evaluation of a culture or moral system is pragmatically: how good is it at keeping people happy, healthy, and numerous?
But even this collapses when a culture prioritizes something else over the health, happiness, and overall quality of life for its people, such as religious principles. I can't help but think that such a society must be self destructive and thus must eventually adapt or cease to exist.
Culture may not be universal but basic human decency is.
If your culture celebrate barbarism, you forfit your argument on the ground of going against what humanity has been striving for all throughout its existance.
What's "barbarism," though? What's "basic human decency"?
The problem is that it gets really hard to nail down specifics beyond the obvious things, like "if you do something to someone and they cry out in pain, stop doing it." And even that may not work all the time.
Barbarism isn't bad because magically barabism is bad - there are reasons for it being an undesirable thing. In some cases what someone might consider barbarism might actually be beneficial (say killing unborn children) - there isn't any need to start trying to draw lines between 'good' cultures and 'bad' cultures, there are plenty of real differences that have perfectly rational reasons for being desirable or undesirable if you look at it from the point of view of a random citizen.
Tastyfish on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
What I love about Western culture and view as an aspect that sets it above Arabic culture is that Western culture always knows how to evolve and change. It's very malleable and adjusts to the realities of our time. Western culture is moving forward.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
I would question your knowledge of Arabic culture if you think it's stagnant. Just look at the past 100 years. Huge changes.
Not counting Turkey, which one could argue is more apart of West, what do you mean specifically?
The migration away from a nomadic lifestyle and rapid modernization are a couple of big cultural changes that happened fairly recently.
I guess you could make an argument that the fairly recent modernization makes some of the other cultural aspects (women's rights, religious law, etc.) seem behind right now. Things ARE changing though.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
My criteria are all derived from the fact that the vast majority of people avoid pain and do what makes them happy, that's argueably objective.
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
My criteria are all derived from the fact that the vast majority of people avoid pain and do what makes them happy, that's argueably objective.
What happens when, say, what makes most people happy is to cause a tiny minority of people pain?
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
My criteria are all derived from the fact that the vast majority of people avoid pain and do what makes them happy, that's argueably objective.
What happens when, say, what makes most people happy is to cause a tiny minority of people pain?
What happens when, say, what makes most people happy is to cause a tiny minority of people pain?
That's a good question. It's also one which people have had a difficult time answering. Do you think that means that morality and ethics, as a field, are bankrupt?
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
My criteria are all derived from the fact that the vast majority of people avoid pain and do what makes them happy, that's argueably objective.
What happens when, say, what makes most people happy is to cause a tiny minority of people pain?
People avoid pain to a far greater degree then they seek happiness. Therefore keeping people away from discomfort is prioritised over helping people be happy.
People avoid pain to a far greater degree then they seek happiness. Therefore keeping people away from discomfort is prioritised over helping people be happy.
Well, surely the prerequisite to happiness is the absence of unhappiness, yes?
As for the rest of this thread, I'm not a cultural determinism, and I'm pretty minimally sold on constructivism. So I'm just going to briefly shout out to the "realists" in the audience and say that virtually everything about a society is determined by practical, rather than cultural, demands, and culture is only brought in to give it meaning.
But sometimes what was practical becomes part of the culture and is kept hanging around far longer than it is actually practical to do so (or kept as a whole when really only part of it is beneficial).
Let's be a bit more fair to the Aztecs, the people thought that if they don't sacrifice their people that the sun will stop glowing. Ignorant and stupid yes, but one might consider that an aspect of "necessary evil" in aztec culture.
Much as say, Free Speech in western culture leads to unsavoury characters promoting hate under the guise of freedom of speech.
Posts
*Edit - I just browsed my link and realized that the article doesn't go into as much detail as the film itself on the abuse of 3rd world nations; I'll find some better examples and repost later.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
Why not judge them on current ideals?
Sure, it may not have been bad for the time or place, but that's just saying this piece of shit doesn't smell as bad as that piece of shit. It's all still shit.
You know, I think I agree with you.
What seemed wrong to me was making a moral judgement. Ie. saying that romans were evil because they had slaves (no one did that, just an example of how I was reasoning).
The Nazi German "government" was a manifestation of Nazi culture. They're inextricable. One is larger than the other, but they're still inextricable.
Yeah, I'm not gonna say their evil. But are we better off today with our culture then with theirs? Fuck ya.
I know what you mean, but it's still a grotesque oversimplification. It's akin to saying "North Korea's not a bd place to live, provided you are Kim Jong-Il."
Weird, I never learned anything about this. @.@;
In this very thread, people have pointed to examples of how religion affects several of those things independent of government. A religion saying "stone women who are unfaithful" is a knock against women's rights, for example. Other than the government defining what is a crime, I don't think the government has to have much control over any of those things for them to be issues in a culture.
That being said, the government of an area has a huge impact on the culture of a given area. Through legislation, good or bad, it can control culture deeply. There's not double equals between them, but there is a non-trivial relationship.
jewish, black, gay or a member of any non-axis nation. in other words about 97% of the world's population. Dresden carpet bombing is what it netted them for their 7 good years of economic freedom. It was not good for anyone except possibly the upper class who stole permanent wealth at any point in time i dont see how it's really up for discussion.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
The points you establish as desirable are only desirable because your culture or subculture finds them desirable.
What people don't want to seem to admit is that cultural relativism is pretty much the same as moral relativism. From a purely objective standpoint, yes, it's all relative, but you have to decide where you stand and what values you see as important, and that is a subjective decision.
It sounds like we agree. I never said they were the same.
I was inexact when I initially brought "Nazis" up, but we can certainly talk about the culture of Nazi Germany, which is what I was referring to (and made clear in a separate post).
You could make the argument that Nazi culture was a culture of brutal reformation, almost nationwide cannibalism that was necessary for the survival of Germany, but that the Nazi culture itself was not sustainable.
Remember, I said no moral judgements. Obviously they were "evil".
I do have the feeling this thread went horribly off-topic, I was hoping for some Clash of the Civilizations talk, but instead we're talking about Hitler. I don't think I can contribute to this, at all.
This seems fair, given how much of a culture is probably related to morals. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to conclude that a culture that comes closer to achieving the "best" oberall morality is objectively better. If, however, morality is subjective, a conclusion on which culture is best will be subjective as well.
Oh, I agree. Culture and Morals are pretty much intrinsically linked in these cases.
Then again, I have absolutely no problem saying morals and culture are NOT completely relative (ie - there are some things that are wrong, regardless of what your culture is).
As far as I've seen, the only things people seem to argue endlessly about with regards to culture are moral issues. Everything else is either unimportant - chopsticks vs forks - or can be objectively analyzed - successful vs unsuccessful economy.
Their women and slaves might tell a different story.
People can be wrong.
Arabic culture is stagnant. It's forever rooted in the past, and in Sharia law from which is has no desire to emerge from.
Interesting point!
On a related note, I've heard someone criticize the use of the term "fundamentalist Islam," on the grounds that Islam is automatically fundamentalist in its theology.
Similarly, I've seen the argument before that Islam has not yet gone through its "Reformation" yet, and so isn't really a Modern idea (in the sense of Modernism).
Has anyone ever heard these ideas before, and/or can you corroborate them?
I would question your knowledge of Arabic culture if you think it's stagnant. Just look at the past 100 years. Huge changes.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Not counting Turkey, which one could argue has always leaned more toward the West, what do you mean specifically?
Yeah, but those relativists will just say your list of criteria is based on your culture and so worthless for objective assessment. They have an annoyingly self-consistent argument for such an obviously stupid idea.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
If your culture celebrate barbarism, you forfit your argument on the ground of going against what humanity has been striving for all throughout its existance.
The problem with relativism is not in its truth/falseness. Obviously no cultural or moral system is objectively "better," because culture and values and morality exist only as subjective concepts. The problem with any form of relativism is how useful it is. Complete relativism is pretty useless, on par with "but what if we're in the matrix, maaaan?"
Thus, the only way IMO to approach an evaluation of a culture or moral system is pragmatically: how good is it at keeping people happy, healthy, and numerous?
But even this collapses when a culture prioritizes something else over the health, happiness, and overall quality of life for its people, such as religious principles. I can't help but think that such a society must be self destructive and thus must eventually adapt or cease to exist.
What's "barbarism," though? What's "basic human decency"?
The problem is that it gets really hard to nail down specifics beyond the obvious things, like "if you do something to someone and they cry out in pain, stop doing it." And even that may not work all the time.
This isn't obvious--probably because it's not true.
The migration away from a nomadic lifestyle and rapid modernization are a couple of big cultural changes that happened fairly recently.
I guess you could make an argument that the fairly recent modernization makes some of the other cultural aspects (women's rights, religious law, etc.) seem behind right now. Things ARE changing though.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
My criteria are all derived from the fact that the vast majority of people avoid pain and do what makes them happy, that's argueably objective.
What happens when, say, what makes most people happy is to cause a tiny minority of people pain?
That's Democracy!
That's a good question. It's also one which people have had a difficult time answering. Do you think that means that morality and ethics, as a field, are bankrupt?
People avoid pain to a far greater degree then they seek happiness. Therefore keeping people away from discomfort is prioritised over helping people be happy.
What?
*edit: "what?" as in "elaborate, please?" You're also banned, so this whole post is useless. :P
Well, surely the prerequisite to happiness is the absence of unhappiness, yes?
As for the rest of this thread, I'm not a cultural determinism, and I'm pretty minimally sold on constructivism. So I'm just going to briefly shout out to the "realists" in the audience and say that virtually everything about a society is determined by practical, rather than cultural, demands, and culture is only brought in to give it meaning.
Much as say, Free Speech in western culture leads to unsavoury characters promoting hate under the guise of freedom of speech.