Anthropology Is A Class I Have Enjoyed Very Much

“Culture relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging the activities of another culture as “low” or “noble”. However, every culture can and should apply such judgements to its own activities, because its members are actors as well as observers.”

One of my favorite examples of cultural anthropology was from the beginning of the semester in the movie The Gods Must be Crazy. When Xi was venturing to the end of the earth to drop off the Evil Thing, he has

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

Cultural relativism is the idea that human behavior, ideas, and emotions must be understood in the context of the whole culture in which they occur.

Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

Ruth Benedict describes cultural relativism as the belief that what is abnormal in one society may be considered normal in another, and vice versa, as well as that a person’s ethics and behaviors are shaped by the culture in which they grew up (Benedict, p. 22). By this logic, no culture is morally superior to another, and none are wrong. This idea is innocent enough when debating between sweet and unsweet tea, but it becomes more difficult to defend when talking about the custom of mothers in Japan killing their children while committing suicide, because the children are viewed as an extension of the

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

What are cultural assumptions? Cultural assumptions are defined as assumptions that are commonly known throughout a culture. These assumptions are highly relevant in the modern society we live in. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from, you will always have your own assumptions. Literature plays a key part in what kind of assumptions we will have, right from the age we begin to process information in our minds. This leads me to the assumption that has stuck with us since our childhood days. Stepmothers. There is a strong cultural assumption that stepmothers are ‘evil’ people, who force their way into other families and are malicious to their stepchildren. Assumptions like this influence our perceptions and lead

Cultural relativism suggests that whatever any culture does is acceptable and we must positively judge other cultures’ practices—it is “right” for them. Who am I to judge differently? Cultural relativism arises out of a concern not to impose our cultural values on other cultures. The problem with believing that all values are

Participant observer: The researcher enters the organization or research setting and becomes a part of the team work. This can be done by joining the organization as an employee and observing the dynamics while working for the organization.

Here, unlike naturalistic observation, the researcher intervenes in the environment. Basically, this refers to inserting yourself as a member of a group in order to observe behavior you wouldn't otherwise have access to. Although it seems like naturalistic observation and participant observation are simply categories, you should understand that there is a really a continuum of intrusion into the environment. It depends on the extent to which the researcher is involved in the research study. For example, if someone sets up an event (e.g., putting trash in a path to see who picks it up), this is not naturalistic observation (see criteria above). This is also not participant observation research because the researcher is not a part of the group being observed. Think of this as a continuum with naturalistic observation on one end and participant observation on the other.

How does one observe while simultaneously participating? It is an awkward position for the researcher to be in—the very nature of the term “participant observation” is at odds with each other; therefore the author must keep a degree of distance in order to fully observe and record their observations. At the same time, the author must do as the locals do, which is: it is very important for the researcher to connect with members of the population. As the researcher gets to know the members of a group he or she will be studying, it is important that they learn to make friends quickly so they can be accepted in the community and obtain quality research in the form of observation, interviews, and accurately record field notes. Additionally, the researcher will have to take all their personal thoughts, interviews, and observations and organize the data with an eye towards their own biases and subjectivities. These are some of the positive aspects of participation observation, but there are many potential drawbacks as well.

Different societies have different moral codes. Cultural relativism claims that ethics is relative to individuals, groups, cultures and societies. Relativism resists universal moral normal. The moral code of society determines what is right or wrong in that society. There’s no objective standard that can be used to judge one’s society code against another. Its arrogant to judge others cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. Cultural relativism for many people is a response to the complexity of moral issues and the number of different responses various. Groups our cultures have given to moral issues so for many when we look at just how different cultures have responded two different issues the way different cultures. All this diversity that there seems to be a response where we want to say well, maybe there isn 't some sort of absolute right or wrong maybe morality really is just relative to a different group that different people believe different things. In this paper, I will discuss the aspect of my culture from an outside perspective and discuss another culture from an inside perspective. In sociology, the principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one 's own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is related to but often distinguished from moral relativism, the view that morality is relative to