Cultural relativism -“the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself". Cultural Relativism relies on the hypothesis that ethical frameworks, which differ throughout the world, are all plausible in their own individual right .If you buy into the thought of cultural relativism, one tends to suspend judgment of other societies controversial rituals and practices. Thus to ‘completely accept” all customs must blur our perception of right and wrong. I will explore cultural relativism alongside the morality behind the gun control laws in the United States of America (USA), in conjunction with the concept of arranged marriage specific to India, and ultimately come to a clear conclusion …show more content…
? The basis for Americas gun policy is due to the second amendment to the United States constitution, it's states " a well regulated Millitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This apparently “integral” part of their society begs to the statistic of more deaths to Americans than terrorism since nine eleven. From an anthropological point of view I cannot abstain all judgment upon this matter and consequently deny the concept of cultural relativism in this event. When looking for evidence that our judgment is swayed, one simply has to look at the tremendous debate across the world. Surely this suggest “blurred lines”. Nevertheless I may have a strong “British bias” and perhaps don’t understand the right to own a firearm for self-protection In this instance my impression of gun control laws show me that they have become so profoundly embedded in American values, the judgment between “right and wrong” has been distorted, thus supporting the statement. Nevertheless does this concept still apply among another …show more content…
However, it has been custom in parts of India for centuries. Arranged marriages are the process of a third party, usually family, selecting a suitable partner to partake in marriage. Naturally uncommon and “bizarre” to anyone from a western society. Nevertheless when looking at empirical studies it does sway my western bias. One study compared American and Indian arranged marriages. The conclusions were at first American couples were a lot happier. In this case the concept of free will is the issue. To accept this practice does not sway judgments upon right and wrong to a point. However the fact that the marriage is “arranged” not chosen questions the concept of free will. In turn this scenario disagrees with the statement to some
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.
The source culturalindia.net states that “a marriage is termed as arranged when it is arranged by people other than those getting married”. Arranged marriages in India have been around
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.
In different countries the gun control question has formed and developed under different conditions and factors. The most significant form it has in the U.S., in my opinion, and there is no country in the world with same attitude and militarization along with supportive legislation as it is now in the Sates. At the same time, shocking and horrible shooting stories showed by the media every time sounds one worse than the other; it is hard to understand how someone would do such a thing. Among the
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
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.
Cultural relativism is the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values,
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual. Those who hold to cultural relativism hold that all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity. Cultural relativism (CR) says that good and bad are relative to culture. What is "good" is what is "socially approved" in a given culture. Our moral principles describe social conventions and must be based on the norms of our society.
Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.
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
Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. No culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.
Cultural relativism means the exact opposite of ethnocentrism. It can be summed up as believing that “all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity” (www.cultural-relativism.com). This means that there is no definite “right” or “wrong”, but rather an ever-changing set of values for each separate culture.
Cultural relativism is one of the core concepts of anthropology. Are there any limits to this concept? If so, what are they? Is there a place in anthropology for the idea of universal human rights?
If we look at the world today, there are millions of cultures centered everywhere. With this much cultures in the world, everyone is bound to believe that they’re all different. Even though they are different in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the case, do we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge the cultural practices of other societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, we begin to have a deeper insight this idea of
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