ATHEISTS: If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis ...?

Question

If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis could or should anyone ever move to interfere with cultures that practice apartheid, female circumcision, cannibalism, or ethnic cleansing?

Answer 1

i am not an atheist, i am agnostic, but i see your point.
Morality was based on religion, but not anymore.
Our calendar is based on pagan gods, we don't pray to them.
Our holiday figures (santa, easter bunny) are based on pagan traditions, we aren't pagans.
So if we follow Christian morals, do we have to be christian?

Answer 2

There is no "if" about it; morality IS a relative social construct. Even with a religion in place calling the shots, it's still a social construct.

And why do you feel anyone needs to interfere in another culture? Are you, as an individual, a cop to interfere in other's business? Are you, as a member of whatever society/culture you in, somehow the world cop who meddles in others' affairs?

The things you mention are things I find morally repugnant. But what makes you think religion is the answer? Most of the things you mention are based on religious differences and/or concepts!

So then it comes down to "my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend." How about there is no invisible friend and we're all in this together, muddling our way towards tomorrow the best we can.

Because that's the truth of the matter.

Answer 3

Morality is not only based on social construct. Even though a culture may allow for something like apartheid, it is known that this is still causing harm to a significant group of people. This harm is another way of forming morality. So the harm done to a person, or group of people can also create morals.

In reality, you have formed your morals from the same things that atheists have. Unless your morality is only formed from what your religion tells you, which is a weak way to form morality.

Answer 4

For much the same reason as the American Civil War was fought. Given a variety of different cultures, all cultures will be affected to some degree by the dominant culture. For example Jewish "caskets" before Roman domination were unadored. With the imposition of Roman rule on Judah, caskets were decorated with "graven images" in contradicition to early beliefs. Is the reason why women must dress as they must, a live the way they are dictated too in some of the middle east--the Islamic Culture dictates. History has proven that the more benign cultures which celebrate personal freedoms, justice, all the "moral" things survive much longer than cultures based on repression, murder--the immoral things.

Answer 5

Cultures that are practiced in sovereign countries are the business of those countries . We , or anybody else have no business telling them what to do , or not to do .
The United Nations Organization has been set up to prevent much of the above , but it isn't too successful .
Remember , morality did not start with religion . It's the result of civilization , even though some countries are still not completely civilized .
You address your questiion to Atheists , but much of the above is practiced in very religious countries . None is approved by Atheists .

Answer 6

"apartheid, female circumcision, cannibalism, or ethnic cleansing" are all because of various religious practices. We shouldn't interfere with other cultures unless there is physical harm done.

Answer 7

That's actually not a bad question and it points out a flaw in describing morals entirely based on social constructions. Personally, I believe there is more to morality, the cause and effect relationships, avoiding harm to sentient beings, all the things utilitarianism entails....Are you going to look up "utilitarianism" or you don't really care?

Answer 8

solid question, and one for which there is not any precise answer (for my area.) we've tried to stress morality on different cultures many situations, and the outcomes have been mixed at superb. because of the fact of this Gene Roddenberry proposed the non-interference directive for substantial call Trek. for my area, i think of societies do have specific ethical absolutes, and that they should shield contributors of alternative cultures whilst their rights are being disregarded. What the interference must be, and for what point is annoying to declare, yet it fairly seems acceptable to stay away from genocide and slavery. I additionally think of a society has an actual to shield itself, however the prospect should be fairly dire and truthfully shown. as an occasion, if we've been to ensure that deforestation of rain forests threatens our destiny survival, i think of we'd have the main suitable to apply stress to end it.

Answer 9

I consider "doing no harm to others" as a basis for reasonable morality. I've never thought that it's simply a 'relative social construct' as you describe.

ethnic cleansing? Come on now! (generally driven by religion)

Answer 10

What are you talking about? Are you saying that the only reason to dislike any of those things is because you believe in G-d? Those things are an abomination to society. They are base and immoral practices. The fact that you believe that Atheists wouldn't dislike these things because they don't believe in G-d, makes you as ignorant as you seem to think Atheists are.

Answer 11

Technically none, which is why we try education first. Have you noticed a huge war effort on cannibalism or the others? Or are you advocating that since *your* morality is right you should enforce it on all?