Cultural Relativism: Why Groups Should Have Rights Based On Their Culture

Any person that would judge somebody on their cultural standards or traditions is guilty of ethnocentrism. When people are guilty of this they believe that what they’ve learned is right is the most superior and what other people and cultures do is completely abnormal and weird. On the other hand cultural relativism is quite opposite; it is the belief that all cultures are equally valid and no culture is more superior then another when comparing them.

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 effects of culture in shaping individuals are systematic and may lead to the predominance of distinctive social types in different cultures. On the one hand, universalism States that the more the culture of "primitive" which eventually evolved to then have a system of law and equal rights with Western culture. The effects of culture in shaping individuals are systematic and may lead to the predominance of distinctive social types in different cultures. (Donnelly, 2016). Cultural relativism, on the other hand, to the contrary, namely that of a traditional culture cannot be changed. However, cultural relativism also occurs in Western countries like the USA. The reality is that no country or culture readily accepts the imposition of a ‘‘universal’’ human right when that right clashes with indigenous viewpoints. (Reichert, 2006). Here is a further discussion about the two ' ideology

Ethnocentrism according to The Essence of Anthropology is “a way of viewing other cultures in relation to one’s own in the belief that the familiar sets a universal standard of what is proper or correct”. Throughout Cultural Relativism and Universal Rights the author Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban expresses her thoughts on what anthropologist can do to protect human rights within the cultures they study without considering ethnocentrism, holistic perspectives, and being culture-bound. Overall Fluehr-Lobban does not do a good job at expressing her ideas on how anthropologist can help protect human rights and I found myself not agreeing with her statements.

It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child. While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their

In the article “Cultural Relativism and Universal Rights” by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, the author explains that the job description of an anthropologist requires them to use a cultural relativism approach, when witnessing and analyzing a culture. However, the author questions whether or not there anthropologist should abandon culture relativism depending on the situations, particularly when witnessing anyone in a dangerous situation. Carolyn also claims anthropologist refuse to discuss this topic, even though they know better than anyone else of the cruelty that goes on in many cultures (1). Carolyn also points out that the few times anthropologist has spoken out; there has been a good result such as in. Carlyon also addresses the counter arguments

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.

Going off that, in cultural relativism what is right or holds moral value does so from one’s culture. What does this mean then to the disenfranchised – for instance, the non-white, indigent, women, or the mentally impaired? When they breach from the culturally accepted norm they don’t receive the same protection as those in power. The author of our book, Judith Boss states: “cultural relativism promotes ethnocentrism and legitimates hatred and discrimination.”

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 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 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 Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes? By Oonagh Reitman journal is clearly explicate the idea of how relativism and feminism assessed that human right that we have and used nowadays is no longer relevance. This journal explicate about the difference idea between feminist and cultural relativist towards human right even though both agreed that human rights need to reconstruct and there are several point that human rights is still lacking. However, these two perspective also have several similarities even though sometimes they are still very different in terms of approaches strategies. The fact that feminist and cultural relativist have several similarities lead into the corporate possibilities,

First of all, universalism creates conformity that cultural relativism completely abolishes. With one set of human rights that is in practice for everyone everywhere, people’s cultures will begin to die as some of the rights may be blocking them from practicing their traditions. In the modern day, with the internet and the merging of the world, cultures and traditions are beginning to fade and that process can be slowed down with the relativist ideals. The rights that come from this ideology are based on the values associated with the cultures, which supports all traditions, civilizations, society boundlessly as the human rights are boundless themselves. While the rights are based on what the people decide is correct, and the argument states that people will often choose what is more comfortable or ‘fun’ over what is moral, I believe that if actually put into practice the human population will decide what is humane in the long run. What I mean is that there will be trials and conflicts in some cultures with problems of theft or death, but these sacrifices will benefit the human race and humans will realize certain ‘golden’ rules that are always applicable. This will enable the world to have rights that can apply to everyone, but rights that cater to each individual religion, culture and country. For these reasons, cultural relativism is a superior mindset to

The fight for and discussion of human rights and the applicability of such rights has raged for decades, and more broadly for centuries. Philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have touched on human rights, and political figures such as Eleanor Roosevelt have made the theoretical discussion of such rights a reality through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since the Declaration, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10th, 1948, there has been more and more literature on the topic, as well as if considerations should be made for different cultures. Phyllis Chesler, professor emerita of psychology and women 's studies at the College of Staten Island, recently took up this apparent clash between the universality of human rights and considerations of cultural relativism. She addressed this clash by arguing in favor of banning the burka in Western countries. Martha Nussbaum, however, argued against a proposed ban on the burka in Spain and other European countries on the grounds that it was discriminatory against the Islamic faith to ban that certain piece of clothing. Nussbaum argued that the practices and customs of cultures should be considered when considering laws that will affect them. Amartya Sen, an Indian economist and philosopher pointed out the glaring disparity between men and women in many countries. He also explained the faults and failures of two prominent

In reading Universalism Vs Relativism, by Mathias Risse, I found the article was outlining theoretical concepts that I have learned in an Introduction to Political Science Research Methods Class. This class outlined the debate between the positivists and interpretivists, which pertains to arguments of what humans can definitively know and measure within reality, and how objective one can truly be while analyzing data. In many ways, the debate between universalism and relativism, that Risse describes, is an extension of this epistemological debate. Relativism suggests, much like the interpretivist viewpoint, that there is an inherent level of social construction in all cultures which dictates perception of reality, norms and institutions. Therefore, by interpretivist standards, the UNHR could never work as each individual’s interpretation of it would differ. Relativism goes beyond this argument to state that not only would their interpretation differ, but their moral obligation to adhering to the UNHR would be compromised. Therefore, a universal moral guide cannot be imposed as there would be no consensus. Additionally, Universalism follows positivism quite closely, as Positivism asserts that everything within human perception can be quantified, creating variables that can be replicated and generalized. Therefore, through the implementation of rationality, universalism works because a set of universal laws can be derived because definitive universal baseline exists and can be