Moral isolationism is the belief that no one can ever understand any culture except his or her own. And due to this lack of understanding, no one is ever just in criticizing another culture. This argument demonstrates validity, but it is far from a sound argument. The premises definitely support the conclusion, however they will be shown to be completely false.
P1) if you don’t understand a culture you cannot criticize it
P2) if we are not a part of a culture we can never gain an understanding
C) If we never gain an understanding of a culture, we can never criticize it
Advocates for moral isolationism insist that the world is divided into distinctly different cultures, each with its own set of principles and beliefs. They continue that in order to demonstrate respect for all cultures, decisions of moral judgment can only be made within one’s own culture.
Following this attitude, we as Americans, having a modern, westernized culture, could never understand the beliefs of a culture in another country or region. An example of this is the ancient Japanese custom of tsujigiri , which means “crossroads-cut.” This tradition, practiced by the samurai warriors of Japan, called for testing out new swords on passing wayfarers or travelers. For a samurai to succeed in battle, his sword must be able to slice though someone in a single swing, passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly, in combat, the warrior would lose his honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his ancestors.
At first glance, this ancient custom appears barbaric and morally wrong. In our culture murder is the most heinous crime. We despise it so much that those convicted are removed from society either with a prison sentence or by execution. Here we find that in ancient Japan murder of innocent wayfarers was not only “all right,” but also essential to preserving honor of an entire group of warrior people.
Moral isolationists would point to this as another example of an unqualified society trying to judge a culture they do not understand. However, several philosophers, including Midgley , have proposed several interesting questions to counter this claim. First, “If we are unable to criticize other cultures are they equally unable to criticize us?” Midgley answers this question by stating that it is possible to pass indictment, but in order to be qualified in judgment a significant amount of time must pass. She warns against excessively quick or snap judgments but states that it is possible for an “outsider” to formulate an opinion given the time.
The second question proposed to the theory of moral isolationism is, “Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame?” Through this question, Midgley makes the strong point that if we do not understand the Japanese culture of the samurai well enough to criticize it, then we likewise do not have the ability to praise it. Judging a value or custom involves forming an opinion, and to the moral isolationist, a lack of understanding would prevent an opinion from being formed, no matter if it is a positive or negative one.
The final question asked examines the moral isolationists claim in regards to our own culture. “If we can’t judge other cultures, can we really judge our own?” Midgley writes that if we are not justified in our opinions of other societies then we may also lose the opinions and understanding of our own culture. By not placing value, good or bad, on other cultures we lose our ability to reason and compare beliefs, taking the good and hopefully abandoning the bad.
In fact, if we as a culture were to adopt moral isolationism as a widely accepted policy we would begin to see a decline in moral progress and experience an overall sense of moral apathy. Many moral questions emerge from the combination of various cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles. The United States certainly fits this profile. People of every race, ethnicity, and upbringing are forced to judge and place value on the beliefs of others outside their community.
By being able to hear the views and beliefs of others, whether from contemporary philosophers or ancient Japanese samurais, it allows each of us as individuals to judge and form ideals that we can then aim for. Or as in the case of the samurai custom, steer away from. Without opinions of this sort, we would have no framework of comparison for our own policies and principles, no chance of profiting by other people’s insights or mistakes. Midgley helps to clearly explain why the belief of moral isolationism is nothing more than a passive view that disables people from speaking out on behalf of their opinions and forming their own sense of identity and moral reasoning.
