This can be seen from the fact that people should respect and tolerate other’s culture since there is no universal truth that holds for all people. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate the logical way reasoning of cultural relativism and highlight the advantage of the cultural relativism
It asserts that actions are determined as immoral or moral based on how society perceives and accepts those actions, which causes tolerance of all actions to be considered moral and accepted by society. In addition, it allows for tolerance of genocide and nuclear war as long as the culture considers these actions as morally acceptable. Ethical relativism entails the inter-cultural tolerance. Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism), is where right and wrong get their meaning from the individual only. As many students sometimes maintain, "Morality is in the eye of the beholder."
Cultural Relativism Culture plays a significant role in the determination of the proper engagement of an individual. Any given act is moral when the cultural dictates believe that the law is moral. Similarly, the immoral acts within a given culture when the societal norms do not conform to the actions. One only needs a cultural approval to understand whether a given action fits to be moral or immoral in the society. All the cultures around the world are equally justified in their beliefs.
There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound. Although cultures throughout the world are distinct from one another, along with their own unique customs, there are set moral rules that every culture follows which plays a big role, in order for society to continue forward. Cultures are very different as described by James Rachels in “Morality Is Not Relative”. Cultural Relativism means that there are no set moral codes due to the fact that distinct cultures have distinct ideas when it comes to morals. For example, Rachel's supports his argument, by using multiple ways different people lived.
The way many people think about morals is that everyone has the same moral standard and principle that make certain actions appear to be general, to be constituted for everyone. Relativism is a topic in which it determines what could be right or wrong and true or false. Relativism itself is a topic used in ethics to describe morality in societies. Through this, we determine that moral relativism is described as the values that are determined by the society that we grew up in and that there are no universal values. This can be viewed as a prevalent issue as many do not view morality in this sense.
Finally I will make clear if the logical defect of CDA proves if the theory is false or not. The General idea of Moral Relativism is that the beliefs and/or activities of an individual, society, etc. are to be understood. As written in James Rachels book Elements of Moral Philosophy, he states, “Different societies have different moral codes”(p. 18) and that “if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.”(p.19) This shows that in the study of ethics, the study of moral relativism to be more specific, the idea of universal truth does not exist. That is to say what is perceived as “good” or “right” can vary form culture to culture, so there is no way to have one universal truth.
He claims how morality is better understood on a relative level. Instead of one culture being “correct” and the rest misinterpreting the moral principal, it is better to express that each culture receives their morals from different ways of life. “Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people’s adherence to and participation in different ways of life” (pg. 176). One culture should not be considered more moral than another, as well not to considered one correct or right over another one.
Cultural relativism is a perspective who believes that culture is the source of all human rights. Culture is a community trust is a reliable source to become a pillar of human rights. Cultural relativism also believes that every country has different cultures and also will have a view of human rights that is different effect on each country. Feminism is a movement against the rejection of the views or suppression of women 's rights (Karen, 1988). Feminism is aware of the gender inequality in society and in the family, among others in the form of oppression and exploitation of
This journal is talking about the Cultural Relativist and Feminist critiques, where the critiques are similar on International Human Rights. The writer suggested short description of the criticism. According to the writer the critique made by the cultural relativist about international human right is that they reject the understanding that human right is universal by just being a human being or by virtue of being human and whose substance form and interpretation are not subject to variations in culture (Donnelly 1989: 109-110) . Where the Feminist critique says, in reality the one who has more power to human right is man and they said that the gender equality and discrimination against woman is not a priority in International world. This
Cultural relativist uphold that culture is the principle source of any rights or rules, they argued that the existence of women’s human rights cannot be universally applied. As relativist reservations at the international forum that dominantly driven by religious objection which mostly based on Islam and Catholic values, they have also seen human rights as a specific ideology of western imperialism. The author believes that the presence of cultural relativist has become the obstacle of the protection and implementation of the international women’s human rights. Feminist, on the other hand, fully support the agendas of, in this case the