Moral Relativism is tempting as an easy choice. If someone says he or she is a moral relativist about precise issues they perhaps have an underline principle that is morally true everywhere and is not relative. However, trying to find those underline principles is really hard.
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.
Ethnocentrism is a tendency to use our own group’s ways of doing things as a yardstick for judging others (Pg. 40, Ch. 2). Cultural Relativism is understanding a culture on its own terms (Pg. 41, Ch.2). The concept I favor is Cultural Relativism because people should be able to understand and recognize a different culture’s background. It is evident that everyone has different ways to go about life/culture. Coming from another country and knowing two different cultures, helps me understand two different perspectives. I am not a type of person who will judge or believe my way of life/culture is the correct one. Everyone is different, live differently, and think differently. Therefore, Cultural Relativism makes sense to appreciate more because it allows a person to understand where different cultures are coming from. When you think about it, cultural relativism is quite hard to
According to Mosser (2013) "Relativism is the idea that one's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one's society, culture, or even one's own individual values."
Ethical relativism states “there is no universal right and wrong”, and no matter what decision I will come to, will have consequences to my actions (Kottler & Shepard, 2015). We have several students here at our
Religion these days have become the center of our attention as we contemplate whats right and what is wrong. Figuring out what religious views fit best with what you believe can be difficult to grasp as sometime we begin to wonder if what we read or believe actually is true. It is only human nature to question the beliefs that are set before us. Religious views all over the world have many spiritual beliefs and traditions that are all different in some way. It is important to have the knowledge of different religions as not everyone in this world believes the way you might. Having the sensitivity towards their belief is important and having the understanding that you can't change the way that they think. Two world religious views that are
Ethnocentrism is the attitude held by the members of a culture that theirs is the only true, right, and best way to view and act in the world.
Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.
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.
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 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. 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. The logical alternative to ethnocentrism is Cultural relativism, the practice of judging a
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 essence there are no limits to cultural relativism since it’s the study and understanding of cultures and religions, the only problem with this is getting accurate neutral information of a certain culture or religion but it’s a possible task.
One of those rights is the right to freedom of thought, which means that every human being has the right to believe in what they want to believe. As a result, no person should judge other beliefs because they’ll just influence others to do the same. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 states that,” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and that the right includes,” freedom to change his religion…either alone or in a community…” Through this right, everyone can believe what they want we have no right to judge. If we judge them, then we ourselves infringe on everyone’s right to be equal (article 1). Through cultural relativism, everyone can keep their rights and the world would rest in peace without any unnecessary fights. Instead of trying to judge the cultural beliefs of others, we could instead attempt to gain a better understanding of their beliefs. An example is in Things Fall Apart, where Mr. Brown and Akunna talk to each other in hopes that they would convert each other. They both have different views on religion; Mr. Brown believes in Christianity while Akunna believes in multiple gods. However, instead of immediately judging the beliefs of each other, they sit down and talk to each other peacefully about it. In the end, they learn that their religions are not as different as they had first thought. They both have “one supreme God” and they both have