1) Vulgar relativismThis is essentially the thesis that:
a) 'right' means 'right for a given scoiety'
b) that 'right for a given society' is to be understood in a functionalist sense and that therefore
c) it is wrong for people in one society to condemn or interfere with the values of another society.
Basic problem with this thesis is that proposition c) uses the concept right in a non-relative sense that is inconsistant with proposition a).
2) My claim distinguished
As i have stated before i do not adhere to relativism. My thesis is that sacrificing eagles is an integral part of hopi culture, essential to their identity, of what it is to be a hopi. To preclude the Hopi from participating in this ceremony would be akin to destruction of their society.
Happliy, i have discovered that my thesis is not mine alone, being supported by the moral philosopher, bernard williams. Allow me to quote the relevant passage:
"there is room for such claims as that a given practice or belief is integrally connected withmuch more of society's fabric than may appear on the surface, that it is not an excresence, so that discouragement or modification of this may lead to much larger social change than might have been expected; or, again that a certain set of values or institutions may be such that if they are lost, or seriously changed, the people in the society, while they may physically survive, will do so only in a deracinated and and hopeless position."
So there is a valid distinction to be drawn between morals essential to a society's existence and morals which fails to satisfy such criterion. It is only in the former category that i lodge a protest about interference with the morals of a society.
Of course i agree that some societies do not deserve to continue if it is essential to their existence that they perform some act of gross immorailty as a matter of course (e.g. human sacrifice).
However i think one needs to get the hopi in perspective. We are talking about a few birds. Birds that exist elsewhere than on Hopi lands. Hopi culture exists nowhere but on Hopiland. It seems to me an unfair tradeoff to extinguish the Hopi nation so that a few birds may continue to exist. To destroy the Hopi cermony, to destroy the Hopi cculture would be akin to death itself for the Hopi.
If you hold the life of animals above the life of the hopi people then and only then would you be justified in extinguishing their practice. (perhaps MDG you do hold this view i seem to recall you expressing the desire to see the 'fucking corposes of every hopi who supports this asinine tradition'.)
As to your contention that the eagles cannot fly 'as nature intended', i find that utter nonsense. Nature cannot intend anything (unless you wish to attribute a mind to nature. The great earth mother perhaps. Hang on that sounds kinda indian doesn't it?). The birds have the capacity to fly, whether they ever make it to the skies depends upon many factors, of which the hopi are only one.
As to gentital mutilation i do not think that is a practice vital to the survival of the muslim religion that this is so is shewn by the fact that the religion continues to thrive even in countries where the practice is banned.
