Max and Vick - back at it on Cultural Relativism

So Max Kellerman was back at it this morning, offering a tepid defense of Michael Vick. Basically, I think Max subscribes to the theory that certain behavior can be excused if it is condoned within a person's local culture. he refers to it as cultrual relativism and this was my pointed critique of his view.


Cultural Relativism

Max

I am tired of you and some of Michael Vick’s defenders attempt to excuse his behavior on grounds that it is understandable, and even permissible, because of his cultural upbringing. Because number seven was raised in a community where a small group thinks it is okay to maim and torture a dog, we should look the other way and give this guy a pass?

Listen, as I explained in a recent essay, an overwhelming number of people in this country think dog fighting is bad and therefore we, as a people, have collectively decided that it is unethical to engage in such behavior. That is the standard – PERIOD! You can try to confuse and obfuscate this debate by discussing deer hunting and the pork industry, but at the end of the day, the people of this country recognize and support the idea that there is a special relationship between dog and animal. Is that standard completely consistent? Perhaps not but this standard is informed by four thousand years of social history and it is a standard that is nearly universally supported in this country

So Americans have collectively concluded that dog fighting is unethical - that is hard to challenge. But some, including yourself, Steph and Roy Jones, now want to excuse Vick, claiming that his actions were in some way defensible since they complied with a reprehensible local custom. “Poor Michael Vick, we can’t punish him – he doesn’t know any better. He grew up in a community where this is permitted so we have to be more understanding. We need to account for his upbringing. We need to cut him a little slack.” What a bunch of crap!

We should cut this guy some slack because dog fighting is somehow accepted in very small pockets of the country? And we should cut him some slack even when that accepted practice is completely at odds with this nation’s ethics? That is a bit like abolitionists looking the other way in the 1850s and saying: “you know what, these Southerners were raised on Slavery and it’s all they know. As such, we can’t assume the moral high ground and demand that Slavery be abolished.” Similarly, under this model, how can you criticize someone who grew up in the South who may have racist thoughts? After all, that is how he was raised and that is all he knows.

Excusing racism because it is engrained in some local custom is preposterous and so is excusing dog fighting because some yocals have long got-off watching dogs tear each other apart. There is simply no room to condone this behavior. You and Steph can argue all you want about hypocrisy and double standards and whether deer deserve additional protection, but at the end of the day, those arguments fail to recognize that dogs have a special place in our society. That is the case and no local custom can supplant that fact. Its time for some of Vick’s supporters to either accept this view or start cutting racists a bit more slack.