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.
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.
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.
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. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong, it is a matter of personal opinion and no society can pass judgement on another society.
However, I see that the cultural relativist may cooperate with feminist to achieve their intention against the universality but I see this more into Cultural Relativist vs (Feminist vs human rights). Because the practice of cultural relativist based on tradition or religion is against or opposing both universal human rights and the rights of
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 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
Cultural relativism provides a basis for protecting various cultures and ways of life, however, in the Middle East, this way of life is not necessarily a choice, it is enforced, and so in excusing the issue on the grounds of cultural relativism is not appropriate. The ethic of cultural relativism derives from people being able to practice what they chose, aiming to prevent people from being forced to do so. The problem in the Middle East is not a matter of condemning the culture but more so allowing women the option to escape it, not forcing them to. The fundamental claim of cultural relativism is that “no culture is superior to any other”, but in using this theory to protect Middle Eastern “culture”, we are actually allowing numerous cultures
People argue that taking away these guns from normal abiding citizens does not stop criminals from obtaining these weapons. (Zimring 441) Nobody knows if this is true or not, but it is a legitimate argument for those who want the ability to own guns. They also argue that criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if they know that the victim is armed. (Zimring 441) This could be true as well, but there have been no dramatic difference in the number of deaths without or with the laws. Some also argue that gun control laws take away people’s second amendment right to bear arms.
Brusseau, cultural relativism is the suspicion that values and morality are culture specific and not the result of universal reason(Brusseau, 2012). They’re what a community believes, and that’s it. Simply put you could use the phrase “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Each country will have their own set of rules, laws, ethics, and morals which they adhere. During your travels for either work or personal reasons you may come across some rules of society that differ from your own. In the case of Mexico City bribes are a normal occurrence whereas in the United States this is out of the question.