People often excuse bad decisions with "this is our culture", "that's their culture and you can't judge them", "this is what we do", etc. The host of the show then said:
"When people say 'you're criticizing culture!', that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Culture is the opposite of philosophy. It's the task of philosophy to criticize culture, and use reason and evidence to pick apart what's good from what's bad."
Philosophy is based on logically consistent guiding principles, whereas culture itself is based on largely on logical fallacies.
Some common logical fallacies found in the "it's culture" arguments:
Appeal to tradition: "We just do this because we always have.", "This is just our way of life."
Think about how many things that were done in the past that were considered acceptable, but no longer are.
When you think about it, slavery has existed for the vast majority of mankind's history. There's evidence via cave paintings suggesting that it existed before reading and writing.
Same applies to corporal punishment of children. That's been done for a very long time. However, recent studies have shown that not only does it harm a child's emotional development, it even causes them to lost up to 10 IQ points.
Doing something just because it's been done awhile is not a valid justification.
Argument from inertia: "We can't change now, we've been doing it this whole time!"
This is a variation of the above fallacy,
This is also what Harry Browne called the "previous investment trap".
It assumes that something has to be continued, or else something will be lost.
This is largely driven out of fear of change, and the failure to realize that said change might make the person better off.
Appeal to popularity: "Everyone is doing it.", "Everyone knows this."
As I mentioned briefly in my last blog, think about all of the things that were considered "mainstream" views, but have been debunked since.
Many people believed that giving money to the Church would keep you from going to Hell, that Iraq had WMD's, that cutting a sick person "let out bad blood", that the Earth was flat, etc.
Just because a view is widely accepted doesn't make it right....
And just because it's unpopular doesn't make it wrong.
Blood is thicker than water: "This is true because (X person) says it is", "I'm doing (X) because my friends are."
This assumes that something is right just because a friend, family member, or somebody who is admired does/says it.
It's a fallacy because it assumes that said person is right about everything, all the time.
Do you know anyone who is right all of the time?
Appeal to the Heavens: "We should do (X) because God (or some divine entity/entities) wants us to."
This is a dangerous fallacy, and has been used as a justification for many horrific acts.
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the thousands executed for witchcraft, suicide bombing, and more have all been justified with this.
The Romantic Fallacy: "This is wrong because it makes me uncomfortable", "This is false because I feel that it is.", "This is right because it makes me feel good in the moment."
This is the belief that something is true or false, good or bad, simply because of an emotional reaction.
Different thing affect people differently. This is usually a result of different experiences, underlying beliefs, upbringing, past trauma, or other psychological factors.
Since these vary wildly from person to person, they're not a consistent measure of the validity of an argument.
The Appeal to Pity Fallacy: "They just do this because they're oppressed.", "They're the underdog, we have to support them."
This is the belief that an action has to be condoned, simply because a certain group is perceived as disadvantaged.
Now pay attention here; this is not to say that some groups aren't wrongfully disadvantaged, or held back in a way that is unfair.
The question that I feel we should be asking in these sort of circumstances is this:
"Does this group make a mistake regarding (X) because of disadvantage, or because of poor decision making on the part of the individuals?"
The Argument from Motives Fallacy: "They just don't want us to do (X) because they want to hold us back!", "They believe (X) because they hate the poor!"
This fallacy that something is/isn't desired because said person simply has evil motives. Without proof, this claim is meaningless.
I feel that this tends to be driven by a very short sighted view of something, and a failure to dig deeper into the issue.
Confirmation bias
This simply means seeking out what you want to hear. I feel that this is a way that certain bad cultural ideas are perpetuated, because people don't want to confront the error of their ways.
It's simply easier to surround yourself with people who tell you that you're right.
Guilt by association: "He's wrong about (X) because he's a member of (X) political party.", "He's more likely to commit crime because he's a member of (X) group and many of them are criminals!"
This is the major driving force behind most prejudice. It happens when one looks to "pre judge" a group by the actions of a few.
There are many more as well, but I think now is a good place to stop.
My closing thoughts, and food for thought for the reader:
There's no such thing as a completely good or completely bad culture:
As with individuals, different cultures are good and bad in different areas.
If all were equally strong in the same areas, the technology and standard of living would likely be the same across the world.
Aspects of different cultures are interchangeable:
Japan and South Korea are very "westernized" Asian countries, but have still managed to hold on to many of their proud traditions.
Also bear in mind that these countries have very few natural resources. Contrast that with poorer countries like Venezuela, the Congo, and some of the other African and South American countries which are very resource rich. The Soviet Union had access to the most resources on the planet during its time, but collapsed regardless.
Japan and South Korea got where they are by embracing free trade, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, fiscal discipline, and a (relatively) impartial courts system.
These aspects are considered foundational to Western civilization, rooted in Greco-Roman tradition.
The whole "multiculturalism is great" line runs on skewed logic:
This is not to say that different cultures combining is a bad thing. America wouldn't have the diversity and food in music that it does today if not for that.
However if you study American history, you realize that many of the earlier waves of immigrants assimilated far more than in recent times.
The difference between that and what's going in Europe now, is that there was no welfare state back then. So you attracted people who were here to work. And if they didn't, they went back to Europe.
If I recall correctly, about 1/3 of the Europeans who came to America returned home.
When different people work alongside each other to achieve a common goal, they tend to get along.
When people are forced to provide for others and get nothing in return, this just breeds hostility and resentment.
That's why there are many nationalist (and even ultra nationalist) parties on the rise in Europe.
For those who are gung ho about different groups being made to get along, do some reading on what happened in the former Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito died.
 |
| Josip Broz Tito, former dictator of Yugoslavia |
Race and culture are not the same thing:
To suggest otherwise is racist in of itself. You're not compelled to act a certain way because of the color of your skin.
Take a problem that I have mentioned in a few other writings:
The rampant illegitimacy of children and broken families in recent times.
While this has risen substantially in minority groups, it has in the white population as well. This is the result of a paradigm shift in the culture over the last few decades.
Which itself is based on logical fallacies!!!
I think that now is a good stopping point. Any feedback is appreciated! -STK
