Is a wealthy government or a poor government more just?

[Cail]

Of course it is. Just pointing out the difference between a degree and reading a book by a PhD.

And in all honesty, that was probably unnecessary on my part.

[emotional leper]

I give up. If you people think you know more than people with Doctorates in their field, who have been doing this stuff a significant portion of their lives, and know far more about it than any of us, fine by me.

[Prebe]

Just pointing out the difference between a degree and reading a book by a PhD.

Meh. That's the way it is here. The two main combatants of this thread have taught me NEVER to pull rank!

[Cail]

I give up. If you people think you know more than people with Doctorates in their field, who have been doing this stuff a significant portion of their lives, and know far more about it than any of us, fine by me.

You've not quoted anyone. You've not offered a universally held belief. I'm not really sure what it is that you are doing.

[Avatar]

Yeah, c'mon man, give us something to work with. You've claimed the following as human universals:

There is always marriage. There is always family. There are always incest taboos. There is always a system for defining right and wrong. And there is always a system of belief for working out how the universe works, whether it is religion or science.

And we've claimed that since they differ in practice, they're not universal.

Are we at a fundamental problem in how each of us is thinking about the term "universal?"

--A

[emotional leper]

Yeah, c'mon man, give us something to work with. You've claimed the following as human universals:

There is always marriage. There is always family. There are always incest taboos. There is always a system for defining right and wrong. And there is always a system of belief for working out how the universe works, whether it is religion or science.

And we've claimed that since they differ in practice, they're not universal.

Are we at a fundamental problem in how each of us is thinking about the term "universal?"

--A

Well, I'm using the Anthropological terms. If you people insist, I will go get one of my Cultural Anthropology textbooks out, give you Authors and ISBN number, then give you the page number of the quote, and then the quote where they state what the human universals are. Would that satisfy you?

[Cail]

No, it wouldn't. Because if a single person disagrees with it, it's not universal.

Just because someone is published that doesn't make their opinion (and anthropology, much like sociology is a science of opinion) fact.

[Rawedge Rim]

Yeah, c'mon man, give us something to work with. You've claimed the following as human universals:

There is always marriage. There is always family. There are always incest taboos. There is always a system for defining right and wrong. And there is always a system of belief for working out how the universe works, whether it is religion or science.

And we've claimed that since they differ in practice, they're not universal.

Are we at a fundamental problem in how each of us is thinking about the term "universal?"

--A

Well, I'm using the Anthropological terms. If you people insist, I will go get one of my Cultural Anthropology textbooks out, give you Authors and ISBN number, then give you the page number of the quote, and then the quote where they state what the human universals are. Would that satisfy you?

The definition of marraige, or what constitutes marraige is not a universal constant. According to the Catholic Faith, marriage is between a man and a woman, and once consumated, is for life, and unless nullified by the church, the only recognized marraige, anything else is just shacking up. Among other cultures, wives were traded like cattle (the Native Americans come to mind).

Incest, while very widely prohibited, was practiced in many cultures among the nobility and royalty, in order to cement alliances, land, and supposedly to keep the Royal bloodline pure.

Heck, even in modern America, it varies on whether first cousins engaging in sex is incest or not, and whether they can marry or not.

[Brasidas]

Aren't we getting lost in syntax here? Marriage, incest etc can surely be held to be universal CONCEPTS in that you could explain them to just about any human who would be able to recognise them in some form; this is not the same as stating that they are universal CONSTANTS, as just one disagreement would invalidate their universality, as previously posted.

[Cail]

Nope, because 2 men and 5 women isn't "marriage" for most people, ergo the definition doesn't fit.

I can throw a steak in a bowl and cover it with balsamic vinaigrette, but that doesn't make it a salad to you.

[Avatar]

I'd eat it though.

Aren't we getting lost in syntax here? Marriage, incest etc can surely be held to be universal CONCEPTS in that you could explain them to just about any human who would be able to recognise them in some form; this is not the same as stating that they are universal CONSTANTS, as just one disagreement would invalidate their universality, as previously posted.

I agree with Brasidas. If we're going to argue, let's make sure we understand what we're saying, and I think his post is close to the problem.

Neither I nor Cail is saying that marriage isn't something that most (if not all) societies hold in common. What we're saying is that what constitutes marriage is different in every society.

And surely you agree with that?

(And for one I'm interested in the exact definition EL is using. Don't bother with the ISBN/whatnot, book and author is fine. But I would like to know. Because like I said, we're all arguing from our own definition of the terms, and not a common one. Which we should establish if we expect anything meaningful to be said.)

--A

[Cail]

And in the case of marriage, the strict Catholic definition specifically excludes everything other than what fits their definition.

[emotional leper]

Avatar. Marriage is a human universal, because ALL socities have atleast 1 form of mariage.

Seriously. If you people want to tell the people whose jobs and professions are studying humanity to find universal patterns of behaviour to help us better understand ourselves that they are wrong, you seriously need to think about that.

This is highly rediculuos. Would you sit there and tell me that there is no such thing as wave-particle duality? Then why are you going to sit there and tell me that there are no human universals? They're called human universals because all humans have them. In fact, if you didn't have one, it would raise the possiblity that you are not, in fact, human. That you are either a new species of hominid, or that you are a brain-damaged homo sapiens who never had the capability of developing into a normal, functional human being.

See, we in anthropology actually draw a line between 'personhood' and 'humanity.' You can be one without being the other (i.e., feral children.)

[Cail]

The Mosuo Tribe in China does not. Even by your skewed definition if universality, marriage now does not meet it.

[emotional leper]

The Mosuo Tribe in China does not. Even by your skewed definition if universality, marriage now does not meet it.

Walking Marriages

It's called Serial Monogamy.

[Cail]

Except that it's not.

From your link....

While it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings will actually be more long term. Few Mosuo women will have more than one partner at a time. More than one anthropologist has described this system as “serial monogamy” as many of these pairings may last a lifetime.

Many isn't all, which means that it's not universal.

[emotional leper]

Except that it's not.

From your link....

While it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings will actually be more long term. Few Mosuo women will have more than one partner at a time. More than one anthropologist has described this system as “serial monogamy” as many of these pairings may last a lifetime.

Many isn't all, which means that it's not universal.

Cail, you're being dense. First you said not all societies have marriage practises. Now you're saying that it's not a universal because not all member of those societies choose to practice them.

Please, Cail. Just admit you're wrong.

[Cail]

No EL, you're putting words in my mouth. I very clearly said that there's no consensus on what "marriage" is, hence my steak/salad comparison.

Most cultures have something that they call marriage, all don't. What Warren Jeffs calls marriage, many other people call felonies.

Again EL, you really need to drop the condescending tone. If we're all too stupid to grasp what you're saying, perhaps you might want to look for a smarter forum.

[Avatar]

Avatar. Marriage is a human universal, because ALL socities have atleast 1 form of mariage.

But how many societies practice the same form of marriage?

You're talking about a concept, we're talking about the moral standards inherent in the concept. No catholic would consider a hindu marriage a real one, would they?

--A

[Brasidas]

I think we're still arguing over misnomers. You can't have a human universal, you have to have a human universal SOMETHING. I can argue that marriage could be a human universal CONCEPT, without defining the matter any more deeply, but I can't just say it's a human universal - there's no definition in that staement.