Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality and justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality and justice
Furthermore, Seyla Benhabib, a Turkish-American philosopher and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, combats the claim of scholars, like Mohanty, that universalism is ethnocentric. While some intellectuals believe that universalism is a concept that the West has internationally promoted without considering other cultures that may differ from the West, Benhabib strongly disagrees. First, Benhabib puts forth the idea that other cultures have been and are compatible with the West. Like Nussbaum, she believes that our cultures are not as different as we have come to believe. She states that universal legal principles have been created as a product of all cultures in all areas of the world feeding off one another. Those who believe …show more content…
One issue that has presented itself is when cultural relativists and the adversaries of universalism fail to recognize the contingency that Nussbaum writes about. Although universalists place all humans in one category with equal rights, they recognize the difference between the upbringings of individuals. It is helpful to look at certain practices through a cultural lens in an attempt to understand that practice, but it is also crucial to step back and view that same practice in order to discern whether it is morally right and just. Universalists do not aim to restrict cultural practices or activities unless those activities violate informed consent and the harm principle set forth by John Stuart Mill. Mill believes that an individual should have the liberty to do as he pleases, except when that act intentionally harms someone outside the scope of consenting practitioners. Another issue with universalism is when countries and individuals alike misconstrue it to mean conformity and sameness as opposed to what it truly is - equal rights and concern for all humans. In The Politics of the Veil, Joan Wallach Scott argues against the French’s decision to outlaw the veil. This decision may have been surrounded by less controversy if the French government provided a right of exit for those who feel oppressed by the veil and fear the consequences from the men of their family and community, as opposed to outlawing the practice as a whole. As mentioned above, the veil has provided a zone of comfort for many women for a long time. Although the original undertone of requiring women to wear the veil was the intent of demonstrating male domination, it has recently simply become a piece of clothing and a part of some women’s identity. In outlawing the veil, the French were appealing to their own ethnocentrism, and goals of assimilation and
Professor Leila Ahmed, active Islamic feminist, in her article “Reinventing the veil” published in the Financial Times assumes that there is a connection between “advancement” and veiling, which means that unveiled women are advanced and vice versa. In addition, she supports that it led to increasing rate of violence. She questions why women wear veil, that is considered as “symbol of patriarchy and women’s oppression”. However, research changed her position towards wearing veil. Firstly, she states that wearing veil was essential for women, because it could be beneficial and influence to how people treat women, in terms of job, marriage and free movement in public. Secondly, her assumption was explained while interviewing women, who stated
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.
In the article, Chesler uses several persuasive appeals in an attempt to convince readers to support France’s ban on head coverings. While some may argue that banning religious clothing infringes on Islamic law, Chesler points out that “many eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious… women insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces… Leading Islamic scholars agree with them.” In an appeal to logos, Chesler uses facts, gathered from educated Muslim women and Islamic scholars, to show that this argument is illogical because the burqa is not required. Chesler continues logos appeals by citing the Sheikh of al-Azhat University as saying “The niqab is tradition. It has no connection to religion.” This passage demonstrates ethos as well, but carries on the idea that burqas and niqabs are not required by Islamic law, making the ban perfectly logical. The idea is that, since these garments are not mandatory in the Koran’s broad requisite of “modest dress,” the ban does not infringe on religious rights, making the ban a logical choice. Chesler takes the argument one step further by insisting that the burqa is not only optional, it is detrimental to wearers. The argument that “it is a human rights violation and constitutes both a health hazard and is a form of torture” to women who wear burqa exhibits both logos and pathos. By pointing out that burqas are a possible “health hazard,” Chesler uses unappealing syntax to make readers believe that burqas are unhealthy and i...
For some women wearing a veil is not something that is forced on them but rather a choice of their own. Martha Nussbaum and Maysan Haydar are both authors that try to explain their reasoning that veiling isn't an oppressive tool used against women. Martha Nussbaum's article “Veiled Threats”, is a political and philosophical take on why banning the burqa is a violation of human rights. On the other hand Maysan Haydar’s article “Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”, is a more humorous and personal take on why veiling shouldn't be as judged or stereotyped. Though Nussbaum and Haydar have equal goals this essay is being used to understand the main argument, claims and whether or not each article has any weaknesses.
Ever pass by Muslim woman in a hijab at the mall or park and think how oppressive and restraining her culture must be? Maysan Haydar, a New York social worker who practices the Muslim tradition of veiling, believes otherwise. In her article, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering,” Haydar highlights on her experiences as a Muslim living in an American culture, where showing more skin is the “norm.” Haydar speaks specifically to a crowd who unconsciously makes assumptions about certain Muslim practices, in hopes of sharing the truth behind them. Haydar suggests that, contrary to popular belief, not all Muslim women cover themselves strictly as an “oppressive” religious practice, but that some women, like herself, find
Muslims, Sikhs, and many other religious affiliations have often been targeted for hate crimes, racial slurs, and misfortunate events. We are all different in our own ways some are good and some are bad yet one event changes everything for everyone affiliated with the group. The book The Politics of the Veil by Joan Scott a renowned pioneer in gender studies gives a detailed and analytical book of about the French views towards the Muslim females in France during 2004. The author talks about why the French governments official embargo of wearing conspicuous signs is mainly towards the headscarves for Muslim girls under the age of eighteen in public schools. The main themes of book are gender inequality, sexism, and cultural inequality historical schools used in the book are history of below, woman’s history, cultural history, and political history. In this essay, I will talk about why Joan Scotts argument on why the French government’s ban on wearing conspicuous signs was
On October 11, 2006, district Judge Paul Paruk dismissed a lawsuit case between plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, and defendant, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, because of the plaintiff’s refusal to remove her veil in court (Murray,2010). The United States is viewed as a beacon of light for liberal democracies because of the widespread involvement of citizens in government, free elections, and emphasis on human rights. The US Department of State reports, “The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the U.S. over 200 years ago.” The US still holds the objectives behind its foundation in high regard and has gotten involved in spreading the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights across the globe. Article 18 in the Declaration of Human Rights and Article One in the United States Constitution issue freedom of religion for all individuals. Judge Paruk’s demand for Muhammad to remove her veil was viewed as a violation of civil rights and infringement of the free exercise clause in Article One by some, but other citizens saw this demand as just and necessary in order to uphold the Sixth Amendment which calls for fair trials (Paruk and Walid, 2006). The government’s main aim is to uphold constitutional rights, and there is debate about which rights hold precedent and are most valuable (Murray, 2010).
As Sandra Lee Bartky stated in her paper Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power, there is no reason for women to fight for their rights, because they already enjoy them- well, at least in the developed countries. Women have the right to show their breasts in public, but majority of them decide not to. What is pulling them back? Is it really them who decide or an “anonymous power” who is responsible for this unconscious reinforcement? (Bartky,88). Based on the Breast of Intentions, Swedish Women Shed Bikini Tops in Pool Campaign and Dixon-Muir’s Breast Test articles in the course pack, there are certain reasons why majority of women choose not to go topless in public, although they have the right legally to do so. On the other hand, Bartky analyzes some of the possible regimes, which enforce women to submissiveness, but also recognizes that they are the ones who seem to practice them on and against their bodies.
There are many different views towards Muslim choice of clothing especially wearing the veil. “I wear it believing it is necessary, but someone else can be wearing it believing that she is doing something extra” said Hamna Ahmed. One of the many reasons a Muslim can be wearing the veil are their own personal decisions too. Hamna has been wearing it for seven years now, despite her mother and three of her four sisters staying uncovered. Socially this causes an issue with the meaning of the veil and conflict with other groups. With many different consumptions of religion, what it means, what is considered to be practicing and what is not can lead to negative misunderstandings. Ultimately the decisions are up to the individuals although; there is likely to be misinterpretation between the meaningfulness of religion to family and society. On an even bigger scale of things this could also impact society and it...
Premise 1 contains many examples to back up its factuality. For instance, Muslim culture requires females, who reach puberty, to cover up practically everything from head to toe. It is deemed morally wrong for women to show their hair or skin to men for it is a means of seduction. However, in other cultures, causal wear is seen as normal and accepted without any men falling for a woman by the sight of her hair or skin. Therefore, the act of not covering one’s body is seen as right in one culture, and completely wrong in another.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
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.
This was very helpful, especially when talking about the role of women in society. To know that women in both cultures can see the other as oppressed helped to challenge any ethnocentric views that may have influenced me. It is so easy to have a gut reaction based on stories of extremism, but the article said that often veils are often seen as a sort of freedom. It talked about a woman who saw it as a way to be valued for her work instead of her image.
[online] Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?year=2000&country= 0& region = 0& type = 0& theme = 0> [Accessed 2 March 2011]. Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell.
Utilitarian faces the issue of deciding between objective or universal good. An objective good would be one that is not tied to a particular human interest. A universal good is for all people at any given moment. The theory of Utilitarianism continues with a division into two different parts the first is hedonistic utilitarianism, which is the focus on if something is universally pleasurable to determine if something is good. Then there is preference utilitarianism, which is to try and satisfy as many singular people as possible.