The feminist and cultural relativist have the same critique but different goal. Feminists do not refute the theory that the international human rights is universal, but feminism critique about the practice of international human right, while Cultural relativist critique both the theory and practical of International Human Rights. Feminists argue that the universality that been said in the International Human Rights have not been realized in daily life practices, Feminism assumed that the right only owned and protect the men. Feminism felt like women are not the part of “human” category that stated in the Human Rights. Feminism believes that if the international human rights are truly universal, then the rights is not only for men but also for women which means there must be the right guarantee for women and the rule for their protection.
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.
Cultural relativism, in its most absolute form, is defined as culture being the “sole source of validity of a moral right or rule” (Donnelly, 1984). Such an extreme notion of cultural relativity may sometimes result in the infringement of individual human rights and fundamental freedoms. On the other hand, absolute universalism holds that culture is irrelevant to the validity of moral rights and rules. According to Article 4 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, cultural diversity presupposes the respect for human rights. “The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity.
In each culture there are moral values which may not be considered the same for other cultures. Such differences may suggest that morality is only a question of cultural taste and that there are no universal moral principles, which brings us to the important ethical concept of "ethical relativism". Cultural relativism is the theory that morality is relative to the norms of its culture. Whether an action is good or bad depends on the moral standards that are practical in this society. An action that is morally right in one society may not be in another.
Does every countries have it? Is there negative and positive sides? History: The belief in the right to free speech is older than we believe it is. It actually goes back to the ancient Greeks (Antiquity). In reality, many ancient cultures believed in the right to free speech, such as the ancient romans.
What is cultural relativism, and how does the vision of ethics associated with it diverge from the traditional ethical theories? The ethics of cultural relativism are different than traditional ethical theories mainly because cultural relativism dismisses morality. Cultural relativism is named so because the ethics of different cultures
Cultural relativism has a variety of definitions, but the main idea is that a universal code of ethics does not exist--it varies culture to culture. Rachel’s examines cultural relativism in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and argues that there are commonalities of ethics throughout every culture. Rachels sections off his argument to better explain what they believe. In this piece, they argue that cultural relativism is not a proper theory. They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it.
The theory of cultural relativism is criticized and questioned by many; it is considered as one of the weakest arguments pertaining to human rights. This is because it is established that human rights are needed not for life but for a life of dignity. Furthermore, human rights should be universal, fundamental, and inalienable, and thus they cannot and should not be overridden by cultural relativism. Arguments presented by cultural relativism against human rights tend to be contradictory in nature. This is attributed to the fact that cultures first and foremost need human rights to even exist.
Namely the exceptions of defamation (lying about someone for gain and/or profit) and incitement language (encouraging others to violence or panic).” (The consequences of Free Speech, 2012) Indeed, the limits are permitted, but they are not concretized, that allows freedom of press and speech to expose its flip side that encourages a negative impact on society such as civil disorders. To sum up the issues, the completely freedom of press and speech allow the society to move to the next stage of social evolution due to political, artistic and commercial expressions – the society become more rational. In opposite of the counter-arguments, misuse of information can cause the negative consequences within society. Moreover, the definition of freedom of press and speech is vaguely and sometimes people cannot understand which kind of information can be expressed. Therefore, none of the counter-arguments is strong and I support the concept that the freedom of speech and freedom of press has to be under