Cultural Relativism:
Scene: When Valjean got out of the jail, he was seen looking to do anything so that he could survive in the world. Instead, he was met with the harsh reality of being a convict who was just released out of jail with the yellow paper that said he was dangerous. Therefore, he was not given any work and left to wander the streets by the town’s people.
Cultural Relativism: No one was willing to give him a job, even a day’s work, as he was looked upon a dangerous man, so no one wanted to take a chance with him as he was viewed as a criminal who didn’t have any rights. It was a normal thing to discriminate against a convict. Jean was treated as a second class citizen because he stole a loaf of bread. This was really a minor crime
…show more content…
He praised him for doing really well and making the whole town very proud of his accomplishments as he was also the mayor of this town.
Cultural Relativism: Javert assumed because Valjean owned a factory, and he was the mayor of the town, it was a good enough reason to be an honorable person. Being rich brought respect, and increased their worth as humans were the thought process of people such as Javert, as that was as far as they could think. The rich and affluent ruled the poor to get whatever they wanted.
Scene: A rich gentleman by the name of Bamatabois approached Fantine because he felt it was his right on Fantine to use her whichever way he pleased. Fantine tried to resist it, which did not sit well with Bamatabois because he was in power.
Cultural Relativism: These rich men can treat women however they pleased, but the women of Fantine’s kind had no right to refuse, even if they were being treated unfairly. The men, especially the rich ones had more rights over poorer ones. They only learned to take advantage of the underprivileged. Bamatabois was not used to refusal from women, specifically poor, and prostitutes as that was the usual thing the rich men did to satisfy their
After living in Japan for seventeen years, David Aldwinkle decided to become a Japanese citizen (Weiner & Aldwinkle, 2003). He has immersed himself in the culture, changing his name to Arudou Debito. He has written a book in Japanese about racial discrimination in Japan entitled Japanese Only, teaches at a local university and he even has relinquished his American citizenship. Throughout that time, he has experienced examples of both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.
Javert, born in jail, saw himself as an ostracized adolescent with but two paths open to him. He could choose either to be a policeman or a criminal. He chose to be on the right side of the law. Valjean, a peasant, spent time in jail as a young man and came out of it hating society. He believed himself to be apart from it, and chose to live in hatred and crime. Fortunately, the action of a kindly old bishop prevented him from wasting the rest of his life. Valjean switched to tread the path of life on a more morally upright road. He became mayor, protector of society.
Is a person’s beliefs and morality predetermined and rigidly adhered to by the culture they exist within, or are these fluid elements that can be shaped by one’s own being? Arthur Miller’s fictional adaptation of the Salem witch trials of 1692, The Crucible, highlights the theory of cultural relativity. Cultural relativism is the theory that customs, beliefs, and morality are constructed in relation to the culture from which they are derived. Miller explores both the pertinacity and adaptability of cultural relativity using characterisation, specifically through the development of the text’s protagonist, John Proctor, and antagonist, Abigail Williams. Miller utilises The Crucible’s omnipresent relevance to represent the significant role culture
The author distinguishes white people as privileged and respectful compare to mulattos and blacks. In the racial society, white people have the right to get any high-class position in job or live any places. In the story, all white characters are noble such as Judge Straight lawyer, Doctor Green, business-man George, and former slaveholder Mrs. Tryon. Moreover, the author also states the racial distinction of whites on mulattos. For example, when Dr. Green talks to Tryon, “‘The niggers,’…, ‘are getting mighty trifling since they’ve been freed. Before the war, that boy would have been around there and back before you could say Jack Robinson; now, the lazy rascal takes his time just like a white man.’ ” (73) Additionally, in the old society, most white people often disdained and looked down on mulattos. Even though there were some whites respected colored people friendly, there were no way for colored people to stand parallel with whites’ high class positions. The story has demonstrations that Judge Straight accepted John as his assistant, Mrs. Tryon honor interviewed Rena, and George finally changed and decided to marry Rena; however, the discrimination is inevitable. For example, when Mrs. Tryon heard Rena was colored, she was disappointed. “The lady, who had been studying her as closely as good manners would permit, sighed regretfully.” (161) There, Mrs. Tryon might have a good plan for Rena, but the racial society would not accept; since Rena was a mulatto, Mrs. Tryon could not do anything to help Rena in white social life. The racial circumstance does not only apply on mulattos, but it also expresses the suffering of black people.
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Even nowadays, there still an issue that connected with language and related to cultures such as cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is a behavior in one culture that should not be judged by another’s value system which basically is a belief of own culture practice with respect and understand the different of other culture. While ethnocentrism is the opposite of cultural relativism. It is the ideal that one’s own culture is the main standard and better than other cultures such if other’s culture practice is contrary to your cultural norm, that practice would be immediately wrong. In Language Myths provide many examples of this issue in many chapters which I will be discussing below.
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
Ethics are not universal throughout the world due to the many different persons and cultures that have different moral beliefs and ethics. However, within an area where the culture is similar and the majority of the people in society believe in the same morals and beliefs, all of their ethics can be said to be relative. Rather than believing if an action is good or bad, morals from different cultures and settings are viewed as being either accepted or not accepted. As long as an action is viewed as being accepted then that is a moral of that culture. An example of a moral being accepted in a culture when other cultures do not accept it is killing. There are some cultures that believe in the concept of suicide and/or homicide, while other
“Let us watch the world burn,” said no one. In the history of the world, nobody has done anything just because they want to make the world worse. Yes, even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing when he was murdering millions of people for characteristics they could not help but have. So, with this in mind, why is Javert any different from us? In Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Inspector Javert is the antagonist of Jean Valjean, a selfless and beloved man; he is constantly seen obsessing over catching Jean Valjean.
When the farmers were creating the constitution, when slavery was in full effect, and when white men were placed in society there was a rule of thumb put into place. This rule was expected to be the common patriarchy for the rest of mankind to follow, it did not last long. The main idea was that white men were supreme over and other race or sex. Not only were white men supreme for the longest time, all men were supreme over women. Within the story a woman by the name of Monna Giovanna was told that she should find someone with money to marry by her eldest brothers. Since the common patriarch was in place she was expected to listen to her eldest brothers. ”If only it were please to you, I should willingly remain as I am; but since you are so eager for me to take a husband, you may be certain that I shall never marry any other man except Federigo degli Alberighi” (pg. 165) She went against her brothers and decided to marry Federigo which had not fortune in the end of the story. This many have been only the second feminist statement by a man other than
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.
Cultural relativism argues that what is considered moral in one society can be just as well considered wrong in another and there can be no refutation against either. As a result of this argument one could claim that if this were true, then there really are no universal truths in ethics. In the case of child labor and sweatshops, a cultural relativist would argue that regardless if we deem child labor as wrong within the United States, we would be both arrogant and in the wrong to impose that belief on any other society. Cultural relativists would argue that if a society deems an action as right then it is right within that society and all we can do is respect that. According to Green America, an organization working towards creating a socially just and environmentally sustainable society, “Sweatshops and child labor are a growing problem, particularly in clothing and textiles.” (Sweatshops) According to cultural relativists we cannot condemn child labor or sweatshops in another culture because we have defined it as illegal or a problem. To a cultural relativist, what once culture choses to be right another cannot impose their beliefs of it being