The problem is that standards of government, education, and so forth are cultural standards, and when one says everyone should have the equal opportunity, then there is no opportunity for the Amish or other more traditional groups. Additionally if you think as many do that if you call something "child abuse" that it impacts potential for many years of life, that impacts things too. So I don't think you can separate off standards of morality. These are deeply connected to economic and social realities and the interplay between moral standards and economic opportunity goes both ways. For example, think about this: why do we regard abortion as a right? Is it tied to the realities women face in our economy? Or were hunter gatherers who did not have access to abortion violating human rights? I don't think the second viewpoint is remotely defensible, so it must be the first.
> That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought.
The question is who has the right to fight them and how. It's one thing to critique another culture. It's something else to go out to try to force them to see the error of their ways. The problem is that the latter is usually just an exercise of nationalism if we define nationalism as hating other national/cultural groups.
The question is, how sure should an outsider be of the context of an action? Or is this better left for the members of the culture to navigate and evolve as meets their needs? I side generally with the latter unless it involves conflict between cultural groups. That's different and poses different problems.
I've been thinking about this issue of Hopi "child abuse".
Is it more abusive to subject children to a single coming-of-age ritual designed to teach them to think, or to allow children to transition to adulthood physically unharmed yet full of ideas designed to hold them back from full enjoyment of their faculties?
It seems that the Hopi would be entirely justified in saying that all other Americans are guilty of child abuse.
> That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought.
The question is who has the right to fight them and how. It's one thing to critique another culture. It's something else to go out to try to force them to see the error of their ways. The problem is that the latter is usually just an exercise of nationalism if we define nationalism as hating other national/cultural groups.
The question is, how sure should an outsider be of the context of an action? Or is this better left for the members of the culture to navigate and evolve as meets their needs? I side generally with the latter unless it involves conflict between cultural groups. That's different and poses different problems.