Relativism And The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

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.

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 a set of values and beliefs specific to a culture, these values are not universally accepted, but if the people in that culture believe it, and it works. (Brusseau, 2012) It differs from traditional ethics since actions deemed acceptable can be considered unethical universally, although, when incorporated

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

Rachels’ three part argument against Cultural Relativism begins with the assertion of his first point. If Cultural Relativism is true then the three sub points he presents must also be true. The first is the idea

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” as Mark Twain is often reputed to have said explains with much rhetoric that in fact history is not repeated in a sense that the same events happen over and over again, instead events embrace similar themes. The same concept of Mr. Twain’s history comparison can be brought in support of why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted in 1948 by the UN --an international agreement that dictates basic rights and undeniable freedoms in which all human beings are entitled to-- should be updated. After analyzing the Human Rights Treaty it was concluded that amending the UDHR should be considered because of advancements in the world, in main part due to globalization and

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

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.

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.

We must first understand the two distinct theories regarding perception of outside cultures: Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism. Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.[1] The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion - these ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity’s unique cultural identity.[2] The logical alternative to ethnocentrism is Cultural relativism, the practice of judging a

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.

However, this is debated which I will go into more detail later on. It had the inspiration to promote friendly relations between nations and it is emphasised that all nations should cooperate. Though, this can be said to be naive as to go as far to declare that all countries abide by the Declaration and that it is universal is mistaken. What does it mean to be universal? The concept believes that human rights belong to all human being and that it is fundamental and essential to every type of society. Those who disagree that human rights are universal believe that human rights are based on your culture, it has to be understood that a right for one group maybe outright intolerable to members of another group. Human rights are being viewed as being too ‘Western’ and representing specific cultural norms and belief system of some cultures and societies rather than all. This is the cultural relativist argument, the belief that human rights cannot be applied to non-Western nations. The belief has been endorsed by many political leaders, Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew suggested that the ‘Western concepts of democracy and human rights will not work in Asia, by explaining that the West is too individualistic compared to family-orientated Asia. ‘What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value? Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is

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.

In this paper I will discuss Cultural Relativism and argue that the cultural difference argument is not a sound one, because its premise does not prove or disprove its conclusion. Further, I will use this to prove that morals can be objectively true and do not have to change on a culture to culture basis. Cultural Relativism theorizes the nature of morality and whether moral truths are correct even if they are not agreed on across all cultures.