Mordidass: Ethics And Social Responsibility

Cultural Relativism is understanding and analyzing other cultures in terms of that culture’s internal standards and conditions. One example as to how I have acted or thought using cultural relativism is when I was younger I would always wonder why Muslim women would wear a hijab. Later on as I grew up I learned that Muslim women would dress that way because it was part of their culture. In our culture that would be considered weird or inappropriate but to their culture its appropriate and

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,

A key argument for cultural relativism is that it can foster people’s thorough comprehension of varied cultures and beliefs. It is because by analyzing a culture in terms of that culture, people can gain a better insight into their own moral reasoning and understand the behaviors and beliefs associated with surrounding cultural environment. It is especially helpful in studying unfamiliar cultures or those which are often viewed as bizarre and strange. Take Potlatch culture among indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest of North America as an example. A Potlatch is a ceremonial practice of distributing property and gift. Donors distribute their goods according to social statuses of recipients and owners may also destroy their property. Generous

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.

Looking at cultural relativism, you get a better understanding of the world. Just because something may seem weird it doesn’t always mean it’s wrong. When you get closer to the situation, you become aware of why a culture does a certain ritual or acts a certain way. In light of everything, you find that what they do is not weird at all but rather a way of living within that specific culture.

Cultural Relativism is the idea that moral practices and social norms change from culture to culture, and so morality and ethics are relative and are determined by our culture. The idea is that if moral practices and social norms vary from culture to culture then this implies that if morality and ethics are universal there should be no variation in moral practice across cultures. Therefore, morality and ethics are relative because the above is not true and morality and ethics are determined by our culture. An example of this would be polygamy. In our culture we believe that polygamy is wrong and unethical because man is only meant to have one wife. However, a cultural relativist would say that because this is a common practice in a polygamist society then it is morally right. Rachels says that this argument is not really sound because “for an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and the conclusion must follow logically from them” (Rachels 18). In this case the

Cultural relativism “asserts that concepts are socially constructed and vary cross-culturally. These concepts may include such fundamental notions as what is considered true, morally correct, and what constitutes knowledge or even reality itself”…. (Harper Collin Dictionary of Sociology). The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principles of cultural relativity will weaken morality. “If the Bugabuga do it why can’t we? Its all relative anyway” (Kluckhohn 1944:43). But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean. Cultural relativity challenges our ordinary beliefs in the objectivity and universality of moral truths. Different societies have different moral codes. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is only one among many.

Someone might wish to hold a Relativist stance because they may be in a culture which holds questionable practices in the eyes of other societies. Cultural relativism would in a way protect their beliefs. When an individual holds a relativist stance they become as close to complete tolerance as possible, and hold no judgment for another’s beliefs, religion, ideals, or practices. Because of this non-judgment policy they are better able to understand cultures that may have otherwise been seen as unapproachable, disgusting, or simply wrong to the eyes of outsiders. For a Relativist, no one culture is better than another, because they are, “One among many.” They do not let their own experiences within their culture cloud their judgment of others,

Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is the understanding of people and culture on their own terms. Understanding that all cultures have a qualitative difference from our own culture and that they have their own inner logic (McDonnell 2016).

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

Cultural Relativism is a theory arguing that each different society follows a different moral code that is created by the majority and that is completely right and acceptable. A moral code is right, not because of any moral reason, but because a specific culture says it is. It is important to understand that Cultural Relativists believe that each group has the right moral code for themselves, even if there are contradictory moral codes in different societies. In James Rachels’ article on Cultural Relativism, he argues against the idea of Cultural Relativism and says that Cultural Relativism is not valid because, with a Cultural Relativist worldview, people can decide whether their actions are right or wrong by looking simply at what society holds to be true. Rachels’ finds fault in mindset. A culture can easily have the wrong moral code on a certain topic. Rachels’ uses an example from South Africa’s belief in racial segregation. South Africa’s moral code was clearly incorrect, but according to Cultural Relativism, apartheid is the morally good choice, only for the South African society. How can something so wrong be right for only certain societies? Rachels’ argues that this is a huge reason why believing in Cultural Relativism is not the best decision. Additionally, Cultural Relativists are unable to call another group 's moral code wrong, even if it is wrong. Plus, believing in Cultural Relativism leaves no room for improvement, because people are unable to

If cultural relativism were employed it would prevent us from judging and questioning our own country’s policies as well as preventing us to pass judgment upon other cultures (Rachels, 19). In order to determine whether a particular action is right or wrong an individual needs only to review the standards of the society in question. Rachels cites an example of an Indian resident questioning the morality of her country’s caste system, a policy of hierarchal order (20). The woman must think in terms of her society’s culture in order to figure out whether or not something is moral or not.

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

What is culture relativism? Culture relativism refers to the idea that the values, knowledge and behaviour of people must be understood within their own cultural context. This concept recognizes and affirms the connections between the greater social culture and trends and the everyday lives of individual people.

The basic idea of cultural relativism is to understand the different cultures of the world by observing it through the viewpoint of the people who are part of that specific culture.