“No claim is ever true, period. What’s true is always true for someone. It’s true relative to a particular person or culture. And what is true for one person or culture may be false for another. There’s no such thing as the absolute truth on any question.” This quote from Stephen Law really encompasses the subject matter in the chapter “Into the Lair of the Relativist” in the book Philosophy Gym. He also talks about the matter of relativism and tries to answer the question, “Is there such a thing as an absolute truth?” In a quest to answer this question, the author explains interesting, boring, moral, and conceptual relativism, and how they differ. Stephen Law also goes into depth about relativists vs. those who oppose relativism, and how …show more content…
The example used by the author is a conversation between two characters, Olaf and Mrs. Barbery. In this conversation, Olaf states that female circumcision is wrong, but Mrs. Barbery makes the point that even though female circumcision may be wrong or “false” to him, that in a Sudanese culture it may be “true” according to their own moral standards. However, when the truths are compatible, this is called boring relativism. An example of boring relativism would be if someone says “I like apples,” this statement may be true for one person but not true for another, but both people can disagree and still accept one another. Along with interesting and boring relativism, Stephen Law goes in depth about moral and conceptual relativism as well. Moral truth is relative to certain cultures. The author uses an example of polygamy, and how the statement “polygamy is wrong” is true for western cultures, but it may be false for others. There is not a deciding factor or an independent being that can decide whether polygamy is right or wrong, and it would be arrogant to impose our own particular moral point of view about polygamy to these other cultures (Law 50). Another form of relativism is conceptive. Conceptual relativism is how different people perceive something, and how their truths may differ from one another, but can still be right based on their perspective. It is said …show more content…
When I read the chapter at first, I considered myself a relativist, because it seems that a relativist would be the most tolerant of other people and cultures. But after reading, I learned that relativists can be the most hypocritical, and while being acceptable of somethings, they can be highly intolerant of those whom they disagree (Law 56). I also found the conceptual relativism very interesting in this chapter. The fact that two different people can perceive something in two different ways, and both be right, is an interesting concept. I feel if more people realized this, they could learn from each other and less arguments would be caused.
In conclusion, there are many types of relativism, and after reading the chapter I have concluded that there is no absolute truth in any type of relativism. There are too many types of people, cultures, religions, beliefs, and perceptions to have an absolute truth for anything, and that is okay. There will never be an all mighty person who decides on what is the absolute truth, so if more people could be like non-relativists - open, accepting, and tolerant – the world could be a better
When the settlers of Europe first came to the new world, they were introduced to the Native Americans. The settlers wanted the Natives to follow their culture and its benefits such as education, religion, and the usage of the environment. The Native Americans refused the request, stating they have their own type of culture, believing it to be the most superior; as a result, the Natives’ statement angered the ethnocentric settlers. Consequently, this caused a conflict between the two groups because of their culture differences. Firstly, the main culture difference consists of religion, tradition, and way of living.
Our moral beliefs indicate the kind of environment or culture we grew up in. Therefore, if we were born in Somalia, we would believe that it is morally right to go through female circumcision as a rite of passage. However, if we grew up in the western world, then we would not believe in female circumcision. We can therefore see the relativist 's argument of cultural relativism in this case, because if cultural relativism exists, then naturally, morality will also be relative. Additionally, to support his stance, the relativist will also argue that tolerance comes into play when it comes to cultural relativism.
“Doesn't matter what the press says doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the country decides something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe no, matter the odds or consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world. No you move.”
In Louis Pojman’s “Argument Against Moral Relativism”, he classifies the three premises for ethical relativism. Those of which include the diversity thesis, the dependency thesis and the final result of ethical relativism. Following his explanation of these three ideals, he goes onto explain as to why each one of them are invalid. Of the arguments that he provided, I’d consider his justification against the concept of subjectivism.
Do you agree or disagree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles, but that all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance? Explain your answer and why you agree or disagree. I agree with conventional ethical relativism that there are no objective moral principles other than justified by the virtue of cultural acceptance. In regard to the dependency thesis as it relates to conventional ethical relativism, right or wrong acts of individuals depend on the nature of the society that molds them. Until recently cultures have developed independently with their own history, beliefs, and subcultures intrinsic of their specific moral principles.
Cultural relativism is the understanding of other cultures in their own terms. To achieve the understanding of the rituals used in the cultures of another, one must be able to look at them from an emic (insider) perspective. One must also be able to look at his own culture from an etic (outsider) perspective. The ability to look at one’s culture from the etic point of view will make it easier to explain the rituals to someone from a different culture, for example, rites of passage. Rites of passage are used to mark a life stage and are celebrated by tradition or religion, meant to separate a specific group.
In Monique and the mango Rains, there are many connections to course concepts. This book connects to the anthropological perspective which includes holism, cross culturalism, and cultural relativism. She also experiences culture shock. This book can be related to the Anthropological Perspective because there are examples of holism, cross culturalism, and cultural relativism thought the book.
In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. 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.
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
To better explain, moral relativism states that moral judgments are true or false, but “only relative to some particular standpoint
This is because of moral relativism’s take on ethical dilemmas, and the view that there are a number of disagreements among people as to the nature of morality. An act can
56–63. Accessed 1. Baghramian, Maria and Carter, J. Adam, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = (-- removed HTML --) . 2.
Therefore, different cultures with result in different moral codes. In that case, people should see matters from many aspects instead of having a general truth as the standard. A second reason why cultural relativism has a more logical way of reasoning is because it teaches us to keep in an open mind. 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
In other words, “right” or “wrong” are culture specific, what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality that exist, no one has the right to judge another societies custom (Ess, 2009). Cultural Relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What makes up right and wrong is determined solely by individual or the society (Ess, 2009). Since the truth is not object, there can be no standards which applies to all cultures.
(Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group. 2. A moral claim is true, relative to a culture’s moral code, if and only if the claim is generally accepted within that cultural