Normative Cultural Relativism. Relativism Is The Philosophical

Cultural relativism is the idea that morality is about objective facts, and different communities have different morals. Just because they may be different than other communities, it doesn’t mean they are wrong. Gensler points out several problems with this idea, the biggest one being that it forces us to conform to society. Gensler uses an example with a figure skater named Lika Rebel who is from a Nazi country. Even though the majority of the society believes that putting Jews in concentration camps is okay, she disagrees. If you were to apply cultural relativism, Lika wouldn’t be able to think otherwise because it is what her society approves of and is believed to be good. Many of the changes our country has made over the years is due to

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 relativism refers to the view that ethical systems or moral actions that are perceived to vary across cultural diversity are all equal and valid and as such, no one culture is better than the other is. For instance, by taking how words are used in one culture to mean a thing, the same words may be employed in a different culture to mean another thing. Another example is prayer announcements in Saudi Arabia can be heard from far distance which legal. Even if that may disturb your neighbors who are not Muslims. However, in United States such thing is illegal and consider a noise violation.

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.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

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.

In this chapter, the author assesses the various extremes of relativism in relation to truth. Relativism, like its name indicates, is the general view that truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. When this idea is limited to a single individual it is referred to as simple relativism. Likewise, it is called postmodern relativism when this idea extends to a larger group of people, institution, or society. In general, the author is skeptical about relativism as a whole claiming that people disagree on almost everything and the idea that “true if and only if true to my own beliefs” limits the way in which people can objectively confirm the validity of their values. He also proceeds to dismiss the “crazy” belief that truth

The conception, however to these separate beliefs often touches on a moral standpoint in which one must be a global citizen or a cosmopolitan to understand. This concept is Cultural Relativism, a lesson I myself learned from a young age but never had a name prior to GCP-10. Rachels began his text with an anecdote about Darius the king of ancient Persia and how he took citizens of the Callatian tribe and the Greeks in order to form his own experiment to prove cultural relativism. Darius asked the Greeks to eat the bodies of their fathers after they had died and the Greeks were repulsed by such a custom. When the Callatians were asked to cremate their fathers an identical response soon followed. Rachels from this story formed the concept that

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 is the idea that morals and values differ from place to place, and there is no right or wrong when two cultures' moral sets are compared (Brusseau, 2012). This differs from traditional ethical theories, of which Immanuel Kant was a proponent, which propose that there is a universal code of ethics and basic rights entitled to every person ("Universal ethics," n.d.) In the Case Study Mordidas (Brusseau, 2011), cultural relativism and the reconciliation traditional ethical theories come into play as we examine the way Mexico City police officers take bribes instead of issuing traffic tickets to civilian drivers.

This obviously doesn't make anyone a cultural relativist, but people based their positions on a specific case where universal values would have been in tension with a particular culture. It took us working out our questions on a case by case basis to think further about how much weight these positions should have. Since any position in the middle of the spectrum requires discrimination and specificity regarding what is universal and/or relative, case studies are necessary to to uncover these positions. The class seemed reluctant to make these distinctions, as if they were already obvious(I only heard two claims expressing skepticism of group rights when we were asked if they should exist). However, when we began to discuss case studies in small groups, the question was shifted away from asking “Should groups have their own rights?” or “Are human rights universal or relative?” in the broadest theoretical sense to specific human rights dilemmas. This gave us the ground to respond to each other's claims on the same terms. We would have had a difficult time responding to any claims made between cases. Once we knew those cases however, it was easy to think through the dilemmas in a constructive manner. I learned a lot more about cultural relativism through those case studies and how they compared than I did reading arguments for and against cultural relativism. We could make the distinctions between what could have been universal and what could not based on our experiences in our own culture(s) and that of the cases

What is Culture Relativism? Well, according to James Rachels, Cultural Relativism is a theory that implicates that there is no right or wrong way to go about things, it is all based off personal beliefs and one’s culture. With that being said, every culture has different moral codes. There are no universal truths. Different societies have different moral codes. The moral code of a society determines what is ethically right within that particular society. For example, if the moral code of a society says the action is right, then that action is right, but only within the society that goes by that standard.