The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

In the article "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" by James Rachels, the differences between societies and their cultures is discussed.  There are major differences between moral codes that are acceptable and unacceptable.  The idea that there are universal truths in ethics is a myth.  There is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one's society.  Although cultures have differences, there is less disagreement than it seems, and all cultures have some values in common.  

The author feels that Cultural Relativism rests on an invalid argument, that it has consequences that make it implausible on its face, and that the extent of cultural disagreement is far less than it implies.  In addition to these mistakes, someone can also learn lessons from the theory.  According to Rachels, it "warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard....", and teaches us to keep an open mind. 

In relevance to literature, I thought I could make a good comparison to the values in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock."  In this poem, a man cowers before his fear of telling a woman he loves her.  He justifies his inaction by concluding that he has plenty of time, but ends up growing old and alone, because he does not gather the courage to confess his feelings.  The differences between old love and modern love are almost like the differences between the moral codes of various cultures because, in my opinion, the past and present are different "cultures."  In past times, people looked at love/marriage as more of a contract, arrangement, or way to gain wealth or higher social status.  Although they did not love each other (sometimes at first, sometimes never), there were no divorces.  Love was not an option, and many marriages were arranged for the above reasons.  In current times, most marriages or relationships are started because of feelings of infatuation or love, and caring about someone. Although these emotions are genuine, some people move too quickly, and rush into marriage.  Not knowing someone fully leads to our high divorce rates nowadays. 

In relevance to society, a recent scandal can be attributed to both old and modern love: the divorce of Kim Kardashian and Chris Humphreys after a mere 79 days of marriage.  It is old love in the way that many people are thinking it was just a publicity stunt, much like when people had arranged marriages for social status.  It is modern love in the way that they took their relationship too quickly, thinking they were in love and had strong feelings for each other.  They did not consider the seriousness of marriage, and then threw it away like it was nothing.  Now they are fighting over Kardashian returning her engagement ring, designed by Lorraine Schwartz, which features a 16.5 carat emerald cut center stone flanked by two 2-carat trapezoids ... for a grand total of 20.5 carats.  It is worth a whopping $2 million.  I guess it's true....money really doesn't buy happiness!


Happy New Year!!!! :)

Disagreeing with Existentalism

This past week we started to read "Waiting for Godot" in class.  So far, I'm really enjoying it, even though I don't agree with the philosophy.  It's absurdness makes it quite funny in a unique way, despite the existentalist spin.  In reality, the writer is trying to point out that the dilemma of modern humanity is that it's pointless.  The existential philosopher, Albert Camus, and other philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre used the term "Theatre of the Absurd" to express their inability to find any rational explanation for human life.   I think the title of the play is symbolic, meaning that life is a stage, and we are the absurd actors.

From the play so far, and what I've read online, I've gathered that an existentialist thinks:
1. Life has no meaning.
2. Life brings unhappiness.
3. Rules are not meant to be broken, because there are no rules.
4. No matter what, choices will always lead to a strong kick in the backside.  Nothing positive will come out of them, ever.
5. A person who is all talk, no action will never make any value out of his/her life.

As I said before, I do not agree with the existentialist point of view.

Point 1: In my mind, it's obvious that life has meaning.   Every moment is precious, and should not be taken for granted.  Just by spending time with family, laughing with friends, playing with the family pet, or looking at the world, you can see that it means something.  Even looking back at memories shows that it was worth something. 

Point 2: I read a quote somewhere that without the bad times, you won't appreciate the good ones.  Life does bring unhappiness sometimes, but it makes us stronger people learning how to deal with it, or fix the problem, and move on.

Point 3: Without rules, the world would be even more messed up than it already is, regarding crime, etc. End of story.

Point 4: Bad choices do lead to negative consequences, but a person needs to consider what the best choice for them, and the people they love may be before they decide.  There are good decisions, and they will lead to positive outcomes.

Point 5: This point is the only one I somewhat agree with.  I think every person's life has meaning, but they can make it more meaningfull if they take action.  For instance, a person who devotes themselves to becoming a doctor, nurse, or medical researcher is dedicating their life to helping others, and this makes their life more meaningful.  This point can also obviously be directly related to the play.  It's nonsensical dialogue and meaningless action, including a generous amount of cliches, puns, and repetition can be seen while the two main characters are waiting to meet up with Godot.  They take no action to make any decisions about what they are going to do.  They just stand there for a massive amount of time until they have a conversation with what seems like a crazed slave owner.  None of it makes sense, and what they were doing had no meaning whatsoever.  They just talked about what they wanted to do, but never actually followed through.

So, existentalism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying reading the play :)

October: Is Jocasta to Blame?

This month our class read the play Oedipus.  In the play, the main character is deemed a prophecy from birth.  He is doomed to kill his father and marry his mother.  In efforts to avoid this, his mother and father, the king and queen, sent him off to be "bolted" to the side of a mountain, and left to die.  Another man finds him, and saves him.  When he gets older, he learns of the prophecy and, ignorant, tries to escape from his adopted parents.  He ends up where he was born.  Just like the prophecy says, he kills his father and marries his mother.  He has two daughters with his mother.  When he finds out the shame he brought to himself and his family, he struck his eyes, and his mother, Jocasta, killed herself.

I would like to talk more about whose fault the blame should lie in.  In my opinion, it is mainly Jocasta's fault.  Not only did she not follow through with the "termination" of her baby boy, but when her husband was killed she married his killer.  Did she REALLY believe this was a coincidence?  I mean, the guy was the same age her son would be.  There had to be some resemblance.  I don't know, but if I was her I would've been more skeptical.  If there is a prophecy declared with terms as serious as those, don't you think she would be smart enough not to marry again?

In terms of connecting it to modern society, I don't know where this could fit.  You don't really hear about prophecies like this.  The only "prophecy" I can think of is when random guys come out of the woodwork every two weeks declaring that the world is going to end.  They are inevitably wrong because as people, we will never know when it is coming.  I guess this could be a reason to defend Jocasta: She put it out of her mind, and didn't see it coming.

Hypocrite? Or Merely Helping Oneself?

     After reading the article, "The Hypocrisy of Ayn Rand" by Mario Piperni, I knew this was the topic I wanted to discuss.  Starting out with a quote by Rand herself:

"There can be no compromise on basic principles.  There can be no compromise on moral issues.  There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

Her ideas are seen in The Fountainhead, like a punch in the face, through the protagonist, Howard Roark.  He is a young, independent-minded architect who utterly refuses to compromise in his work.  He designs his buildings in the unique style of modern architecture while others around him are glued to older styles.  Roark even blows up one of his own buildings because he would rather see it demolished than altered in any way by someone else.  Although I agree with some of his principles of individualism, hasn't he ever heard of teamwork?  I guess not...

Rand makes it clear in the thoughts, words, and actions of Roark that she believes a person needs to take what they believe, and stick to it, no matter what they need to do to keep it that way.  Apparently, being an arsonist, and destroying public property is a-okay in Rand's book, no pun intended.

In his article, Piperni bluntly calls Rand a hypocrite.  His reasoning for this is that after Rand developed lung cancer, she took her husband, Frank O'Connor's last name so she could receive governmental help for treatment.  This totally goes against one of her statements in which she says that she "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently..."  She didn't feel that an individual should take help.   Shouldn't Rand have figured out a way to financially get treatment herself then, though "doctors cost a lot more money than books earn..."? (Evva Pryror, social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick).  Mario Piperni later states that "In the end, the queen of individual rights and limited government and staunch opponent of the welfare state, turned out to be nothing more than your common, everyday hypocrite."

Honestly, I think Mario is being way too harsh.  If you were in her shoes, what would you do?  Would you sit around as the lung cancer spreads?  Would you reject the money that you didn't have to care for yourself when you were dying?  (Excuse my lack of euphemism.)  Of course not! You have a spouse, kids, dog, job, or whatever!  You're not going to sit around at home and do nothing, despite what you might have said before.  In the end, who really cares what the public thinks of you?  It's what you think of yourself that matters.  If the press, or anyone, wants to criticize you for comments you made previously, let them.  You need to do all you can to help yourself in that kind of situation.  Stubborness is no reason to let yourself go when something could help you.  Besides, no one ever said Rand gave in easily.  Just the fact that she did it secretly means that she knew she was going against her principles, and was not proud of it.  I know I don't blame her.  I would have done the same thing in her situation. I virtually applaud Rand for being strong enough to go against the morals she lived and preached by everyday, even though I know through the intensity of her opinions in The Fountainhead, that it was not an easy task for her.

On a national note, there are millions of people suffering from all types of cancer.  They all have to accept some type of help because no one can totally afford those doctor bills.  What makes Rand any different? 

In closing, every person says a hypocritical thing at least one in their life.  If Rand stayed true to her statements her entire life until the point where she had medical issues, and didn't have a choice, can't we give her a break?