If we were to say that a custom was correct or not, it wouldn’t be true in terms of Cultural Relativism due to us using our own culture to judge and that doesn’t take into consideration of other cultures. Realizing that different cultures have different moral codes is respectful and allows people to potentially take in a new way of life. It is interesting to think that cultures could eventually adapt to having an overarching moral truth, because of living in a more globalized world. Building on the belief that different cultures have different moral codes, the moral code of a society determines what is right. This is also a key tenet of cultural
This means in other words that existentialism transforms your behaviors. According to the existentialists, the most significant thing for individuals is to be a individual, not dependent on the social roles, titles and definitions. Existentialist creates their own moral values independent from the society, and search a reason for their isolated life. The problems of the existentialist are their concern with the unsolved problem of meaning. They are curious to find a meaning and they seek the sense and meaning of the universe.
The author arguing Hegel’s personality theory could argue that they themselves have also invested labour, skill and capital although lesser than the original author, but their work is an extension of their will and personhood. However, there are problems that may arise for the application of personality theory the first being recognition of will of the author by others and rights of the author such as alienation of the property. According to Hegel, the work must reflect the personal traits of the author and the same must be recognized by the society further, he says that, will and personal traits are inherent to an individual and they do not have the right to alienate their property. And, the problem does not end there today only arguing that a copied work is
It also emphasises the fact that all life experiences are significant and will influence you later in life (Carducci, 2009). A weakness of this theory is that Erikson suggests that one should conform within society instead of having individual choices and ideas according to Carducci (2009). Another weakness is that Erikson states that one needs to develop an identity of oneself but within the boundaries of what is considered as acceptable by society and anything else is seen as a negative identity (Carducci,
Psychological egoism is a theory that suggests that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. The theory claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves stand to gain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism is a non-normative or descriptive theory in that it only makes claims about how things are and not how they ought to be. The theory is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism. The following essay seeks to determine the plausibility of psychological egoism as a theory of ethics by presenting possible arguments for and against it.
With close analyzation and peculiar behavior, the “clones” reveal that their self-identity is incredibly fragile, and can transform itself when others impose judgments upon them. Cultural criticism in literature pertains to the belief that individual human uniqueness develops in a mutual concession based on the “certain [societal] climate” (Ishiguro 266). A culture may set limits to which a person (character) is constrained, but an individual is capable of complying to settle or to alter those limits implied. As the character[s] realize that they can do nothing to change their fate[s], “[they] have to accept that sometimes that’s how things happen in [the] world” (266). Which in turn, can be evidently referenced to real-life situations as well.
People are very different in what they are, and what they want. Those same differences pull humans together, proving that to the core, humans are not so distinct. People are driven to satiate the need to fit in, and due to this necessity, they assign values to those things that make you valuable in someone’s circle. Time and time again, society shows that they would go to great lengths to attain the value, regardless of cost. That pursuit is not a new thing, remnants from the past show that these customs live deeply ingrained in our way of thinking.
Both self-perception and the perception of self by others are critical in the forming of identity. Consequently, relations with people are vital in the cultivation and expression of one’s identity. Whereas healthy relationships allow for the expression of oneself without fear of consequences, unhealthy relationships put pressure on one to change for one’s partner. Zora Neale Hurston’s novel Their Eyes Were Watching God explores the difference between healthy and unhealthy relationships, focusing on how each affects the establishment of one’s individuality. Her novel’s exploration of how people’s connections relate to individuality reveals that oneself can only emerge from positive relationships.
Thus, there is more than one justification that are of equal validity, which gives rise to identifying what is perceived as true or false on the basis of context. Even though Boghossian agrees that there is no one absolute truth since social situation heavily influences how one’s beliefs are justified and will vary on each chosen epistemic system used, he finds it makes no sense to insist that we abandon making absolute particular judgments about what justifies what while allowing us to accept absolute general judgments (Chapter
For most theorists and practitioners, CDA is critical because it is self-reflexive, that is, it openly admits and reflects upon the interests for which it is biased rather than claiming the possibility of objectivity and for this reason committed to progressive social change (Titscher et al., 2000: 144). Furthermore, discourse research is critical because it focuses on the discursive aspects of social problems and engages the ideological workings of discourse in the interest of power and the powerful by seeking to reveal the connections between language use and other elements of social life (van Dijk, 2008: 86; Fairclough, 2001: 230). Finally, CDA is critical because it assumes that “all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations that are socially and historically situated and that mainstream research practices are generally implicated in the reproduction of systems of class, race and gender oppression” (Locke, 2004: 25-26). All these imply that critical discourse analysis approaches the object it researches and engages with it through a variety of normative assumptions which guide the topic of research itself, the kinds of research questions it asks as well as the method of analysis and interpretation. However, if the