Monocultures and Exercises in Objectivity

Shared understandings, especially with respect to culture, can be very deceiving, not to mention very dangerous, as evidenced by "If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stanger, Would You?" "Cultural Relativism and Cultural Values" and "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism." Despite the fact that these three articles are often in conflict with one another, all three admit that cultural diversity exists, and that no one culture can definitively decide what is ethical for all people in every situation. This is an important relevation to keep in mind, notably with those matters that pertain to foreign affairs and this contemporary concept of "globalization." Shared understandings give the impression of paternalism and superiority, particularly with regard to dissenting opinions. For example, most Americans are of the opinion that democracy is the best, most effective form of government, and belief in this ideology generally dictates how the United States' government interacts with other nations. Often, the United States has engaged in warfare and conflict with nations of differing ideologies. However, the US doesn't engage in warfare with every country that doesn't employ the democratic system. Who makes the distinction as to what nation needs to be democratized more than others? Disregarding other political motives than purely the desire to democratize a nation, what made Iraq a more imperative front than North Korea? Both nations had the capacity to do great harm, and the citizens of both nations "needed" democracy as much as the other; in fact, the case can be made that North Korean citizens have been living in a greater magnitude of oppression than those citizens under Sudam Hussein's regime. This inconsistency illuminates how arbitrary or "banal," as Hannah Arendt would say, these culturally relevant decisions truly are. All culturally relevant decisions (some might argue that every decision is relevant to culture) are relative to the time and place in which they occur, as James Rachels would argue. Just because Nazis found it ethical to systematically kill millions of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and other minorities, within that culture at that point in time, does not make it, in any way or capacity, ethical. In fact, whenever there is a common understanding in a culture, that should be the time to reexamine and disect why exactly a majority of the people of a specific culture believe what they do.

This applies directly to writing as well. It is not enough to assert something without the evidence, and we cannot assume that the audience will possess the same shared understandings. To simply say something within a vacuum is fine, however, if you want to convince anyone of anything, or hold any amount of credibility, you must support your claims through the use of logos, ethos, and even pathos. A writer must also take into account the opposing viewpoint. Without examining what others believe and assert, you may be missing the opportunity to connect to or counterbalance domineering ideologies. Also, the complete refusal to acknowledge that another side or option exists can seem ignorant or stubborn to readers. No matter what circumstance, these ideas should be considered while writing. Whether it be during a timed exam or a master's dissertation, evidence and perspective should always be present within the prose.