Because each person does not know what values and norms another person has, in order to keep oneself safe, it causes people to draw away from others. Another reason why I disagree with this theory is because it is self-contradictory by stating that two views can both be right. If it is true that nothing is right or wrong, then why believe this theory if there are no absolute truths? By stating that there are no objective truths, that is an objective
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it. Throughout this essay, cultural relativism will be questioned, but also supported in some ways. The idea of cultural relativism reminds me of a sociological term--ethnocentrism--that essentially means the opposite. Ethnocentrism is essentially a bias about your own culture against other cultures. One can only see their culture (usually as dominant to the others), rather than attempting to see the perspective of whatever culture is in question.
The supporters of this approach argue if the author has correctly understood and interpreted the principles of Jung 's theory regarding the personality nature. If her perception of Jung 's ideas was mistaken, then the whole methodology on which the identification of personality types is based would be considered unsound. The opponents of Myer 's ideas state that even Jung himself realized that his typology functions while applying to particular individuals. Besides, many would consider the claims and the explanations provided by Myer in her book as too vague and the ones that could be used referring to anyone. One more point for critics is the simple way of the presentation of information in the book.
ETHNOCENTRISM Ethnocentrism is an idea of considering one’s own culture superior to others in terms of language, culture, values and traditions. Highly ethnocentric groups often perceive their culture as more logical, positive and natural than others. The degree of ethnocentrism will be affected by our interpersonal communications and also will develop hostility between culturally different groups. For example Hitler in Germany believed that Jews and other communities are inferior to Nazis and don’t have any right to live. So he killed thousands of Jews in the concentration camps, just because he thought their race was not pure.
Some individuals say that the Tainos knew of other kidnapping amongst tribes but didn’t realize that tribal warfare was very limited. Columbus Day should be in honor of those who had to suffer and endure pain. In memory of the people who had to have a finger chopped off, those who had to witness public killings. The very same innocent people who had to step aside for foreigners. Why celebrate a man of greed, one whom was self-centered and simply did not care?
“Morally makes us better if we kill those who kill? It’s hypocrital.” ( “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”) If we are speaking about the moral thing to do that is to not kill that person. Us killing that person makes us just as bad, but cleary no one sees that. In all seriousness this stupid, unneeded penalty is just unnecessary killing. “The death penalty doesn’t stop people from doing crime.” (Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished) There is always going to be criminals out there causing trouble.
I lean more towards Schwartz’s ideas, believing that there is a profound oversimplification of the term ‘tolerance’ and that it is much more complex than its definition or even its negative connotations. In my way of thinking, to tolerate something is neither to disapprove or to approve, or to disagree or agree; it is to accept. Whether that acceptance may not be agreeable to one’s own worldview, religion, or opinion, it is what keeps our society pluralistic and
Something happens – injustice, a threat to a nation or a criminal act. Why is it that some people take actions against the so-called “wrongdoers” while some others remain silent? Who or what determines whether something is an “ethical” decision/action? I believe these questions eventually boil down to ethical dilemmas, which are a conflict between moral imperatives. According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective.
In cases of unjust laws, by obeying them, the country is put in harm and not in benefit. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha it is stated “An oppressor’s efforts will be put in vain if we refuse to submit to his tyranny,” (page 38). This means to make a change in the law, it is the responsibility of citizens to stand up for the wrong of the country. This act is what giving back to the country means, not, obeying unjust laws. As mentioned before, unjust laws don't seem unjust to everyone, there are some people benefitting from it in the wrong way which is why it is unjust.