Substantive #10

"The [world] is big, it's vast and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

This question is so messy. It hurts my head. My first idea about this was that the axes of alterity function in a linear pattern in that first you gather information about a new civilization (epistemic), then you compare that information back to your frame of reference and your values (praxeological), and then you can make a final judgement about that civilization (axiological). Therefore, all your judgments and ideas are founded on evidence and can be supported. However, there are many ways to make this linear progression very messy.

First, judgments can be made not based on evidence, but on values. Those with a racist framework on life have a bias against people of color when there is no evidence of their supposed inferiority. However, when that sense of inferiority is ingrained into society through racist laws and attitudes, populations of people color suffer comparatively to white populations. This lack of success in society can then be used as evidence to justify the judgement, even though the evidence is twisted. For example, when African Americans were not guaranteed equal and quality education, the argument that because all the Supreme Court Justices are white means that white people are more intelligent than black people doesn’t hold up. Thus, the praxeological axis is applied first, then the anxiological axis, and then the epistemic axis.

Second, the anxiological view used to interpret evidence can be corrupted which distorts the meaning of the epistemic evidence and leads to an invalid judgement. One of the coolest psychology experiments I have ever read about was Asch’s conformity experiments where participants gave the wrong answer to easy questions because the majority (who were planted in the experiment) did so [LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA]. Conformity and community were judged to be more important than being correct. Thus, an individual can decide to leave out and ignore certain truths if they want to do so.

Third, wrong conclusions are made when the evidence collected is insufficient of biased. This is an easy failure to describe: bad evidence leads to bad conclusions.

The above analysis finally leads me to my answer: no, you cannot be correct without illegitimately subordinating the other because the standards for determining what is correct is different on both sides. The above analysis proves how any standard for determining the morality of an act can be twisted or corrupted to be considered justifiable. For example, the Aztecs really believed that performing human sacrifices would ensure the sun would rise every single day, and if anyone held that as a truth, the same action would occur. However, today, I think it is easier to legitimately subordinate the other because of the existence of world norms. Some norms that I can think of off the top of my head include the banning of chemical warfare and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. So, if countries break these norms, they are held in contempt of an international order. The legitimacy of the subordination comes from the fact that there is an international order to back it up. However, then there’s questions about what countries and values are portrayed in the international order which just adds more complication. But, we have to keep chipping away at the complications to create meaning and engage in diplomacy. We just have to keep on working for a better tomorrow.