What Is Protagorean Relativism?

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."

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.

Pope Benedict once said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures.

Relativism makes sense to people because the culture does not talk about a standard of truth. The youth of today are shown relativism and relativism is such an easy concept for imperfect people, which is everyone, to accept. Relativism can be accepted so easily because how people value emotions and feelings over truth that is frowned upon and looked at as rules or restrictions. Emotions and feelings are not gauge for truth. That is the truth. American culture loves to show that emotions and feelings are what they should base decisions on. They encounter experiences where someone calls them out for something that they did wrong and if they feel what they did was ok with them, they should not be told it was wrong. “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me.” That is the code of

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.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

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 suggests that whatever any culture does is acceptable and we must positively judge other cultures’ practices—it is “right” for them. Who am I to judge differently? Cultural relativism arises out of a concern not to impose our cultural values on other cultures. The problem with believing that all values are

Just as the opposite of up is down, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of the Sophists was Plato. Plato and his philosophies were also rooted in ancient Greece at the same time as the Sophists. Plato studied under Socrates, another famous ancient philosopher, and started the very first center for learning which he called the Academy. Plato was not what you would call a relativist though. He was exactly the opposite. He was opposed to all the beliefs of the Sophists, believing them to be only concerned with the manipulative aspects of how humans attain knowledge. He argued that they taught people how to persuade people into believing they heard the truth, even if it wasn’t in fact the truth. Plato believes that true rhetoric is where philosophers and their pupils become free from all worldly encumbrances and all conventional beliefs in the pursuit of a transcendent absolute truth. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Plato believes that there is in fact absolute truth and contends that discourse is necessary to uncover it. He feels that false rhetoric is Sophist rhetoric and that with their vast knowledge of rhetoric, they should be using it to find absolute truth, not teaching people how to convince people that

Protagoras’s relativism said that morals are just social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. That our culture, conditioning, experience and biopsychology influence our values. It is impossible to form a culture free or context free belief according to Protagoras. For example, I’m from Texas, so I have a vastly different culture than a person from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Socrates concluded that the truth was relative and that knowledge is based on specific qualities of the person as in the place you were born, age, religious affliliation, and family habits. He argued that we should only accept what seems to be true at the moment. He also believed that each culture only believes that it’s ways are best, but the person who is studying

To exemplify, they may go on to speak that at one time the earth was even, for the reason that to the people living then, the earth was considered flat. Otherwise, in the case of primeval medicine, those people may declare that bloodletting was considered a cure for contagious diseases. Nevertheless in spite of the renown of Protagoras's vision, to think that there are numerous truths as there are people does not turn it that way. Relativism is also linked with subjectivism. One mark of a relativistic theory of truth is to insert to any statement X 'to us' 'to me' or 'to the citizens then living' or 'to the citizens living there,' entailing that X is or may be the case on the foundation of X supposed to be so to people who assert X (Luptak & Boult, 2005). Challenger of relativism dispute that what people believe, understand, or

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 the last part of the course, we studied different forms of relativism and how they can be applied to morality. Relativism is in contrast to the universal laws that we studied when we were studying Kant’s Groundwork earlier in the semester. Instead, relativism makes the claim that there are no universal laws that can be applied to morality because every point of view is equally valid and therefore nothing can be said to be morally right or wrong. What we perceive to be right or wrong is based on our own perception and is shaped by our cultural upbringing (Drogalis, Lecture, March 31). In this paper I intend on describing the three kinds of relativism and demonstrating how they can be applied in a real world context. I will then focus on normative relativism in particular and describe two arguments in support of normative relativism as well as three arguments in opposition to normative relativism. I will wrap up the paper by summarizing why I believe normative relativism seems to be incorrect when applied to morally complex circumstances.

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.