Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Subjective moral relativism vs cultural relativism
The challenge of cultural relativism
The challenge of cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Subjective moral relativism vs cultural relativism
Culture Relativism
Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged.
By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself.
Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
For all intents and purposes a true person accepts the means of diversity and the right for a person to believe what they want, oh wait I guess if I were to say that and be a culture relativist I would have to listen to someone tell me that in country X they think that everyone should think just alike and if you stray from that you will get shot. I would listen to the way things worked in country X and smile and say “different strokes for different folks”. Just because someone is raised in a different culture and has certain beliefs is one thing, but there are certain inalienable stances in this world that must be right or wrong (at least in theory) and making these stances and believing they are true would be an absolute impossibility for culture relativists. Because no matter what you would believe, you would also have to believe that someone else was as equally correct as...
... middle of paper ...
... It leaves one with no answers, just because one lives in a different culture it makes it all right to kill because that is what others do.
This is not a valid argument and doesn’t help in any way for people to describe why we are the way we are. Although that might not be the role of philosophy, I would contend that it plays an important part in understanding a theory of how it is we should live our life.
Moreover it doesn’t leave us with any truths to the validity of their actions. For a culture relativist to contend that there are no universal truths, and then say that the truth to why people act the way they do is because of where they are from and also how they were raised, is no doubt a contradictory statement.
It would be stating that the universal truth is there are no universal truths universally, which is a universal truth and no doubt contradicting.
It almost appears that the cultural relativist denies a person’s ability to empathize with others, on top of ignoring the fact that people have been migrating and assimilating within different cultures since people existed. People seem to posses a great ability to understand one another. It seems odd to assume that what people have been doing for centuries would suddenly be lost to them. As I stated earlier, people largely have the same values, the differences appear in the expression of these values. I believe that these similar values allow people to understand other cultures even without being from within
Wade Davis, a famous anthropologist, writer, explorer, and other professions, stated “The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.” The quote means that because a person is not like you or your culture does not make them inferior. It makes them unique in their own way. On the other side of the spectrum is David Eller who stated “Insularity is the foundation of ethnocentrism and intolerance; when you only know of those like yourself, it is easy to imagine that you are alone in the world or alone in being good and right in the world. Exposure to diversity, on the contrary, is the basis for relativism and tolerance; when you are forced to face and accept the Other as real, unavoidable, and ultimately valuable, you cannot help but see yourself and your 'truths' in a new - and trouble - way.” What he meant is that because some people are isolated they think that their culture is the only culture out there and when they later learn about other culture they are forced to accept the reality that there are other cultures. That each culture has their own characteristics. The difference between cultural relativism verses ethnocentrism and which one attitude is more favorable in today’s society than the other.
We live in a world that nothing is, as it seems. Every one is raised within societies that have different cultures and subcultures. We conform to the norm and judge the not norm as influences come from media, peers, authority, and so on because we grow into ethnocentrism people. It takes great self-awareness to separate ethnocentrism when looking at any subject matter because our social norm runs deep. But it is imperative to gain cultural relativism if you want to understand any culture outside your
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
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.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
The concept of cultural relativism in a multicultural world by Caleb Rosado. 1. I find it interesting that the author points out that ethnocentrism “implies the failure to view reality from the perspective of the other” (Rosado 4). I believe that sometimes people incontinently fail to see reality in a different perspective because they cannot understand the manner that other people see reality. It is not even because they repudiate the way other people see things but because it is difficult for them to find a logic or coherent explanation about why others perceive realities the way they do. I can tell from past experiences that even people that respect other’s people perception of reality sometimes fail to understand why others
“understanding one’s own culture and other cultures can lead to more effective action across cultures” (251) This is often the perspective of social scientists who work with people and is the result of the work of anthropologist Franz Boas. Cultural relativism helps us to understand that there is not "one right way" to approach many of the aspects of daily living. It is important to try to employ cultural relativism because it helps see the society objectivity, encourages respect, creates learning opportunities that could make humanity stronger, a system of niche expertise, eliminates the concept of separate, but equal. The French society drink wine with every meal, they even allowing the children to often times join. We may consider it wrong, but it is not leading to degenerate behavior, so who are we to say it is wrong. People who practices cultural relativism start to understanding values and norms of other cultures that they were not unfamiliar
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different
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.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
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.