Judgment Day

I see Megan McArdle has a post on her personal philosophy. This is always dangerous, since it provides ammunition to your enemies who can now attack whenever you don't live up to your own code.

In general, I agree with what she says, but one line struck me as odd:

I think that speaking of one culture as "better" than another is a meaningless statement. Culture gives you the preferences by which you evaluate it.

Perhaps I misunderstand, since this statement is somewhat vague.

Sure, it's one thing to say you can't really call one culture's cuisine or fashion or art better than any other. (Not that this is obviously correct, but I see a clear argument for it.) But saying you can't judge one culture better than any other, because you've got no place to stand, seems wrong.

First, can you make any moral judgments at all? I think you can. Everyone sure does. Even if your conclusions are provisional (which they probably should be), at least some of these judgments are meant to be ones that stand outside particular cultures.

That's why I don't think it's so hard to say--even if you accept that other cultures feel differently about certain things, and even if you're aware how ideas have changed throughout history for many different reasons, and even if you approach the subject with great humility--it's better if a society doesn't have slavery or human sacrifice.

If you can't make any such claim beyond mere statements of personal perference, how can you discuss politics at all, since those who disagree with you can just say they have a different culltural outlook and none is better than any other. (They usually do say this, right before they attack Bush, or America, or the West in general.)

I might add even by subjective standards, you still might be able to judge societies. For instance, if members of Culture A would choose to live in Culture B, even by A's standards, B is better.