Category: Cultural Relativism

An occupational hazard of studying, writing about, and teaching Mexican philosophy is that there will always be someone who asks, “What makes it ‘Mexican’?” Or, “What’s so different about Mexican philosophy?” A more pernicious line of questioning might include dismissive queries such as: “Why study ‘Mexican’ philosophy at all?” At some point, I ignore these entreaties as background noise. But before that happens, I have to address some version of these questions, if only to show critics that I am thinking about such things.

There is, of course, a well-developed and highly nuanced answer to the question as to why one should study Mexican philosophy “at all.” But I haven’t found it yet. My current answer is more direct and, perhaps, uninterestingly personal: As a Mexican American, I take pride in the intellectual traditions of Mexico. I also take offense when these are ignored or systematically marginalized. My pride and taking offense may be rooted in my own cultural-historical embodiment. I remember growing up in Michoacán, Mexico, and hearing my 90-year-old Tarascan grandfather, at one point an accomplished corn farmer, call me “filosofó” in a disparaging way—philosophers for him were the “lazy conjurers of ridiculous things” (huevones que se la pasan pensando pendejadas). After every excuse to get out of feeding the horses or beheading an unlucky chicken for dinner, that’s what I was! But this pride and this offense might also be rooted in something else—in a more pre-theoretical understanding of what makes philosophy worth studying, of what philosophy should gift me. What Mexican philosophy gifts me is an occupational model—that is, a way to conduct myself philosophically in the world.

The “model” that I’m thinking about also bestows to Mexican philosophy its distinctiveness. It is a model of doing philosophy wherein situation, embodiment, place, subject-position, etc., are taken seriously and respected. We see it especially with Mexican philosophers of the first part of the 20th century, who worried about Mexico. They agonized about their place in the world as Mexicans. Even those who took more analytic routes to philosophy found it necessary to proclaim their distance from this model, which meant that it was clearly a factor in their thinking.

For me as a reader of Mexican philosophy, the consciousness of situation present in texts of this tradition is clear. Whether affirming or denying their “Mexicanness,” Mexican philosophers reveal a struggle that is part of their philosophizing; a struggle that reflects a belief that philosophy was not bequeathed to them as a birth-right, that thinking “ridiculous things” was not something that they should do, that it was not “practical” or acceptable to think big thoughts. Blame the fact of colonialism, imperialism, Catholicism, or whatever “ism” that has affected Mexicans (and Latin Americans in general) for the false belief that philosophy is not a right but a privilege.

In a similar way, mid-century Mexican existentialism, in particular, speaks directly to my Mexican Americanness in a way that other philosophical traditions or figures have not and cannot. Ultimately, this is what attracted me to Mexican philosophy. Sure, it also appealed to me because, as a Mexican American, the idea that Mexico had a philosophical tradition was intriguing, and I sought to know it and be “part” of it as much as I could. But, it also gave me a way of seeing my own existential situation. For example, when Emilio Uranga talks about the “being of the Mexican,” he points to “nepantla” as constitutive of this being. Nepantla is the “in-betweenness” of this being, the unsettledness of this being’s historical identity. Mexican mestizos (“modern” Mexicans in the philosophical literature) are both Indigenous and European; nepantla describes their inability to be either, to be always in-between both. This creates an existential anxiety that he calls “zozobra,” an internal floundering and shipwreckedness that reveals Mexicans as contingent and accidental. This description appealed to me on a fundamental level: I am a Mexican American, and my unsettledness would be more complex than it was, say, for my Mexican mother. Within my own identity, I must count her own ontological unsettledness as well as my own, compounded by a disquietude brought about by that nebulous “American” identity that imposes itself on my own subject position as a citizen of the United States. The consciousness of this complex ontological nepantla is a gift of Mexican philosophy.

Someone may object that I’m letting my own prejudices blind my judgment about the value of Mexican philosophy, that the only thing that makes Mexican philosophy valuable for me is that it is done by Mexicans, that what’s valuable about putting them on a syllabus is their Spanish surnames. There’s truth to this only to the extent that I do find value in the Mexicanness of Mexican philosophy. But I also find in Mexican philosophy that model I spoke about before, a model that transcends the pettiness of my own subjective preferences for Spanish surnames. This is not to say that there is no value in Spanish surname—there’s definitely value in seeing Spanish last names on a syllabus! If anything, the surname encourages students who will otherwise not see themselves reflected in the syllabus to see that philosophy is not just a German, French, or English occupation. Moreover, the last name sparks curiosity and leads readers to authors and paths of thinking previously unfamiliar.

An example: for an existentialism class I assigned Martin Heidegger and Emilio Uranga, one after the other. After we had gone through the units, a student asked why we read Uranga at all, if what he said was said more “philosophically” said by Heidegger? This is a question that asks for the difference, for the justification that makes Mexican philosophy unique or worth studying. When I think about what to put in the syllabus, the choice between Uranga and Heidegger is a real decision for me. Both talk about being, and Uranga appeals to Heidegger for his own analyses; both talk about ontology (although Uranga’s discussion of ontology is much more contentious, because he talks about a “Mexican ontology”). Moreover, both of these figures are controversial: Both are accused of moral depravity or moral silence in the face of atrocity (Heidegger in relation to the evils of Nazism, Uranga in relation to a rumored complicity with the political regime responsible for the Tlatelolco student massacre of 1968). So what does Uranga add that Heidegger does not? For me, Uranga adds the model of thinking both from one’s circumstances and beyond them—circumstances that in many cases includes colonialism, imperialism, and other forms of intellectual and social marginalization. This may seem “unphilosophical” and harmful to the integrity of philosophy as traditionally conceived, simply because philosophy’s business is allegedly to transcend the particular or the local. But my own embodiment refuses to be dismissed by the imperatives of the tradition, and what Uranga offers to my breathing, living, preoccupied life of thinking ridiculous things is more directly meaningful than what Heidegger offers.

I am also committed to diversification and inclusion. I think it valuable to diversify the syllabus and make it more inclusive. To this, someone will inevitably interject that my attempt is an empty gesture, since I am perpetuating a patriarchal (and colonizing) agenda that was there before I introduced a Mexican (mestizo) male into the reading list, and since I’m not really diversifying anything at all but repeating the European philosophical tradition by including a figure who studied Heidegger (and at one point actually studied with Heidegger in Germany in the mid-1950s). And this is a fair criticism. In response to the first objection, I include in the syllabus Rosario Castellanos and Rosa Krauze, two Mexican philosophers whose existential feminism is undoubtedly informed by their embeddedness in Mexico as a cultural-historical space. As for the second criticism, I insist that even if at times Mexican philosophers are merely echoing the European philosophical tradition, their echoes nevertheless affirm their social, historical, and cultural reality. As the Mexican existentialist Jorge Portilla once said, “Our task is to know and soak up European philosophy, and then to philosophize like [Latin] Americans.” On a more immediate level, and at the very least, the names of these philosophers on the syllabus serve to fracture expectations, to move the discussion away from France, Germany, England, and the United States, and towards the Global South, past border fences and into new thinking spaces. The actual differences presented in Mexican philosophy will, ultimately, be left to its interpreters and readers, who may perhaps see enough there to publish, translate, and teach it.

Ultimately, the value of Mexican philosophy resides in this: Through their own historically situated reflections, Mexican philosophers offer their own circumstantially informed model for the conjuring of ridiculous things. Mexican philosophers are not afraid to allow their circumstance to enter their transcendental meditations in one way or another. The themes they chose to focus on, such as mexicanidad, challenge the hegemony of universalizing philosophy. So what we read is philosophy in a different voice, borne of the struggle against and with the “white mythology” of Western philosophy.

Growing up as a second-generation Haitian-Canadian woman, I have learned that the rights that I have been born with were once thought as being impossible to acquire because of slavery. My ancestors from Haiti were one of the first countries to successfully revolt against the colonial oppression of the French in 1804. They fought for their human rights as liberated slaves and eradicated their persecutors, creating a safe space for them as free people. This exposure of courage gradually expanded across the globe, which also influenced many movements to emerge throughout the years, such as the fight for women’s rights around the world. However, this campaign of rights for women does not seem to affect many regions in the Third World. In 2002, human rights advocate and lawyer Radhika Coomaraswamy held a lecture at the 15th Anniversary of the Women’s Studies Program at Harvard University discussing whether or not women’s rights applied to every single woman. Her lecture achieves to shape many ideas and understandings about how universal women’s rights are a complex goal to accomplish, yet it is possible to reach a consensus. Nonetheless, I believe that women’s rights are universal, however, it is not accessible to every female because many countries do not acknowledge it, nor do they apply it to their regime. Therefore, I agree with Coomaraswamy that it is attainable, but we must cooperate with these countries to find solutions that benefit every citizen, especially marginalized people.

Essentially, Coomaraswamy believes that it is a difficult process to declare that women’s rights are universal because of many different aspects. For instance, cultural relativism, which will be defined in detail later in this analysis, is a reoccurring theme that appears in her lecture since it is a subjective viewpoint in many communities. Thus, not every individual believes in the same concepts simply because they are socially constructed in having certain values, morals, and practices by their environment. She supports this claim with many scholars such as Abdullah An’Naim and brings the relevance of universal laws, that should be applied but are not, and how the advocacy of women’s rights by numerous communities should reform their laws. As much as she can find methods to help her case, she admits that there are arrogant ways to approach human rights such as feminist scholar Courtney Howland’s idea of the expulsion of uncooperative countries from the United Nations. Nonetheless, Coomaraswamy believes that “[confronting] issues of cultural relativism [and universal feminism] in a united way [involves] sitting together, talking, debating, and working out solutions that can be commonly lobbied for at the national level” (Coomaraswamy 16).

Before we interpret other societies’ laws and lifestyles, Coomaraswamy suggests that we must consider the concept of cultural relativism. Rather than judge one’s cultural values, beliefs, and practices, cultural relativism is the idea that different ways of functioning in society should be understood (3). For instance, Western society has a tendency to look down on certain Eastern cultures that consume dog meat, ignoring the fact that for many it is a traditional custom. To put into perspective, some regions on the planet may find it strange that many people in the Western world consume cattle meat. Thus, I agree that the inclusivity of other’s differences causes less judgment and creates an alliance. She acknowledges that it is difficult to implement “human rights” in other countries because we are judging based on our own biases, which are heavily influenced by European norms. Whether it is conscious or subconscious, it is a form of discrimination. Nevertheless, cultural relativism’s appeal is that it is “an act of defiance and an attempt to capture diversity and equality among people” (Coomaraswamy 3). For instance, at the 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women, in the Declaration of Indigenous Women, Indigenous women called for tradition-free recognition of their Aboriginal rights and equal treatment. (Green 144). These women want to bring awareness to the negative impact that colonialism has caused not only on the population as a whole but specifically on them since their pleas have been ignored for decades due to sexism. Hence they want society to accommodate to their needs. Cultural relativism has to be brought into the discussion of human rights so that society can deeply understand these different cultures without judgment.

Nonetheless, Coomaraswamy acknowledges that cultural relativism has been used to justify the denial of women’s rights and understands its complacent relationship with their rights. She brings up the fact that third-world scholars have created their own definition of a “woman” because they disguise it as cultural relativism (7). Their traditional values, albeit misogynist and sexist, are usually the core of their laws. Even North American countries have their own history of taking advantage of this concept to benefit their ideologies when it comes to colonialism. Even though this idea may not have been identified as cultural relativism at the time, European settlers used their Christian beliefs to marginalize the Indigenous population in North America because they viewed them as savages and inferior; taking their resources, exploiting them for labour, controlling their status with the Indian Act (1876) was all under the pretense of the greater good of a civilized Christian society (Green 145-146). Analyzing this example, the dominant group takes advantage of minorities to control them. Therefore, many countries in today’s era ignore the legal doctrine jus cogen, the international human rights law that prohibits derogation, such as the prohibition against torture, sex, and racial discrimination, because it does not suit their narratives, although many of these misogynist communities praise female deities (Coomaraswamy 5-7). Unfortunately, women’s rights are not recognized by many of these countries, even with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) set in place by the United Nations in 1979. In many cases, the reasoning is the fact that women are not viewed as citizens. According to Ruth Lister in Citizenship, “the citizenship traditions were, [and still are], constructed within a male template” because men engaged with its development (58-59). Thus, patriarchy excludes women and their rights because they did not participate in politics nor in wars. This mindset continues in many parts of the world despite the fact that women have been at the forefront in politics and war for many years now. Arrogant methods, such as Courtney Howland’s assertion that countries that violate their international obligations of the CEDAW, such as the inaccessibility of inheritance, the age of marriage, and the practice of polygamy, should be expelled from the United Nations (Coomaraswamy 9). This expulsion is essentially unethical because it is based on a Western discourse and it is not a solution that benefits anyone affected, except for those in power who are not lenient in finding a middle ground; It is as though we are admitting defeat and abandoning those in need of immediate support.

Furthermore, Coomaraswamy agrees with Abdullah An’Naim that “outsiders” should not decide for marginalized groups, but rather support their approaches because the respect of cultural relativism is essential to the progression of women’s rights (11). These strategies must come from within these communities since there are many different viewpoints that are being acknowledged and they are the ones being directly affected. There is also the fact their experience may be unique compared to other women in the world. Thus an alliance should be formed to maintain a respectable and trustworthy relationship. For instance, the Canadian government has been cooperating with the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) since 1974 to find many solutions and perspectives that will better the rights and the protection of Indigenous (Green 148). Although the government has been neglectful when it comes to taking a course of action pertaining to many issues that involve Indigenous women, such as missing and murdered Indigenous women, the government is at least still willing to apply Indigenous people’s perspective into their regime to find and recognize where they are at fault. Decisions cannot be made for them because that means that there is an assumption of an authoritative position which solely necessitates one’s own values onto the marginalized group. As mentioned by Joan Scott in Conundrum of Equality, one of the most common ways to understand our position as a ‘privileged’ society is through the support of affirmative action; raising awareness, education, health, and equality in the countries to create new laws and regulations in support of all human rights (8).

In conclusion, women’s rights are universal, yet they are not thoroughly implemented in many parts of the world. Cultural relativism complicates the achievement of universal women’s rights. Some groups take advantage of it because it benefits them, making it easier to control women. On the other hand, collaborating with these groups living in these oppressive circumstances will help in finding different strategies that will aid them rather than making decisions and forcing ideals onto them without their consent. I am not declaring that living in a world with fewer injustices and more equality will come overnight, or even within years. But it a process that we must all work forward to no matter one’s background, race, sexuality, social class, and gender because it would be nearly impossible for one group to refine women’s rights.

If we look around at the whole universe today, there are tons and millions of cultures centered everywhere around the globe. With this much cultures in the universe, people are bound to believe that they’re all divergent. Even though they are dissimilar in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the scenario, do we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge someone cultural practices of other societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, we begin to have a deeper insight into this idea of cultural relativism and the extent at which we should tolerate the cultural practices. The book follows Okonkwo, who is a socially popular warrior who wants to have the greatest title in the village to separate himself from his ‘weak’ father. The book goes in depth about the cultural practices of the Ibo people and what happens when preachers come to the village to convert other people. This brings up many different views on which we should decide to judge other cultures and when to interfere, and the answer is usually cultural relativism. However, cultural relativism can only keep the peace for so long before the people are forced to take action. Through cultural relativism, we should respect other cultural practices and beliefs until they threaten others by nullifying their rights. However, even though we should always find the most peaceful way to compromise with the little things, in life or death situations we must infringe the human rights in order to protect them.

To begin with, we should respect the beliefs of other societies because they have the right to believe what they want. As humans, we have basic rights that are meant to be with us forever. One of those rights is the right to freedom of thought, which means that every human being has the right to believe in what they want to believe. As a result, no person should judge other beliefs because they’ll just influence others to do the same. However, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 states that,” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” and that the right includes,” freedom to change his religion…either alone or in a community…” Through this right, everyone can believe what they want we have no right to judge. If we judge them, then we ourselves infringe on everyone’s right to be equal. Through cultural relativism, everyone can keep their rights and the world would rest in peace without any unnecessary fights. Instead of trying to judge the cultural beliefs of others, we could instead attempt to gain a better understanding of their beliefs. An example is in Things Fall Apart, where Mr. Brown and Akunna talk to each other in hopes that they would convert each other. They both have different views on religion; Mr. Brown believes in Christianity while Akunna believes in multiple gods. However, instead of judging each other beliefs immediately, they sit down and talk to each other peacefully about that matter. In the end, they learn that their religions are not as different as they had first thought. They both have “one supreme God” and they both have “ahead in this world among men.” (Achebe 179) Although they both have the intention of converting each other, Mr. Brown and Akunna both do not judge each other and learn new insights about the beliefs of others. All beliefs cannot be the same; however, they can all be similar in some way. As a result, if we are to judge the beliefs of one culture, then we would also be judging our own beliefs in the process. The whole process is a huge contradiction that can be avoided if everyone could just respect the beliefs of others through cultural relativism. However, in some cases, respecting a religion can turn hard once the belief itself becomes harmful to others.

Different beliefs lose respect and become harmful once they begin to nullify the rights of others. The most common reason for beliefs losing the respect from others is due to the sacrifices and killings of humans. Humans no matter how young or old, have the right to live a full life and everyone should respect that. However, some cultures believe that it is ok to kill innocent humans because their God had told them to. Even though this act would be ok for them, the rights given to us at birth tell us otherwise. Take the killing of Ikemefuna for example; he was a young child when he was given to Okonkwo after the killing of an Ibo woman by the Mbaino. He lived with Okonkwo and his family for three years until the oracle had given the order to kill him. They took him to the outside of the forest and attempted to kill him, but he managed to get away. He went to Okonkwo and said,” My father, they have killed me,” but all Okonkwo did be draw his machete and cut him down while “dazed with fear” (Achebe 61). This quote shows that the belief itself is in the wrong for nullifying the rights given to Ikemefuna at birth. He had the right to live and even lived with the tribe for three years, and then their God suddenly orders him to be killed. This is ethically wrong, but Okonkwo himself isn’t. It is his belief, and he was raised thinking that he would never be like his father and show weakness. Even though his relationship with Ikemefuna had gotten better, his beliefs would always come first, no matter how wrong it was. The belief itself had eliminated Okonkwo’s right to choose what he wanted to do, in this case, it would be to save Ikemefuna. Even though it would show weakness, he evidently wanted to save him or else he wouldn’t have been “dazed with fear.” This point is also conveyed through the killing of twins in the Evil Forest. Obierika remembers when he and his wife had twin children after Okonkwo had accidentally killed Ezeudu’s son. He remembers how he had “thrown away” his twins and wonders “what crime had they committed,” (Achebe 125). The irony of this quote is that even though they believe it is a crime, their cultural beliefs say otherwise. This shows once again how the cultural beliefs on one managed to become harmful by eliminating the rights of one. They are forced to abandon their right to choose with the result that the goddess’s wrath wouldn’t be “loosed on all the land and not just on the offender.” Now, we have to understand what we should and shouldn’t do in order to protect these rights.

In order to protect the rights of humans, we should use peaceful tactics, but only in the direst situations use force. Some people may disagree and say that if the rights of humans are being jeopardized, then immediate force is needed to take care of the problem. If we use immediate force instead of peaceful tactics, we would only cause more unnecessary conflict. Take the missionaries’ ways of converting the Ibo people. Converting others should be done with peace and respect for their culture, not by saying that their culture is wrong. At first, these missionaries are peaceful and only convert those who come to their church. However, when Mr. Smith becomes the leader, he has no respect for the Ibo culture and wants the converts to be the same. Mr. Smith “saw things in black and white” and thought that “black was evil” (Achebe 184). He didn’t believe in a peaceful way to convert the Ibo people, he only saw the Ibo culture as ‘evil’ and the Ibo people as people ‘locked in mortal conflict’. Due to this, his immediate action was to ‘save’ the people by making them have no respect for the culture itself. This led the people who still believed to retaliate by burning the church. Mr. Smith never thought of the consequences of his actions, and he paid the price. The Ibo had to protect their culture from the threat known as Mr. Smith, even if they jeopardized the missionaries’ and convert right to believe what they wanted. However, no one was being harmed, so force shouldn’t have been the action taken to solve the problem. If we use force when the problem could be solved peacefully, it would only lead to more problems. This is shown when a while after the burning of the church, the District Commissioner took the six leaders of Umuofia and put them in jail. In the jail, they “were not given any water” and they “could not go out to urinate” (Achebe 195). Once again, the people didn’t think about the consequences of what they did, and because they took the forceful route over peace, they paid the price. They were beaten and insulted, and their rights were taken away. To be truthful, the world has a never-ending cycle of violence because people always take the forceful route over the peaceful one. It is a natural instinct that we humans have when our rights have been taken away. We should only use force in dire situations, such as the Libyan intrusion that was approved by the U.N. Security Council. They authorized “military action, including airstrikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery” in order to avert a “bloody rout.” This is the type of situation that should require force because it is a threat to the people’s right to live. Any other situations, such as the ones stated above, should only require peaceful tactics to resolve it or it would only cause more unnecessary conflicts.

In the end, human beings should always respect the cultures of other countries. The only time that we judge any other cultures is when they begin to be harmful to others. By harmful, I mean by jeopardizing the rights of others. There are so many meaningless conflicts in the world today that could be avoided, but our inability to use non-forceful ways to deal with them only makes it worse. There’s racism, problems with homosexuality, judgment through a person’s background, or even petty things like a person’s money. Everyone is different in some way, and sadly the human race is too ignorant to realize that everyone is still equal. It is a human right, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all humans are born equal. If this is true, then isn’t our whole world one big contradiction? We all say that everyone should maintain and keep their rights, but people are continuously having this right taken away, not to mention also that this right is probably the second most important right for people. In some way, we’re all self-righteous, and sadly we will always be this way. It’s our human nature which cannot be swayed by the right of them.

Cultural relativism is a theory of morality, a way of thinking about moral values, principles standards etc. It’s a binding aspect across nations; not necessarily in morals but in the belief in one’s culture. Rachel and Rachel characterized cultural relativism as a challenge to our belief in universal truth (p.18). Rachels and Rachels argue that different cultures have different moral codes and that there is no objective truth in morality. I agree with Rachels and Rachels’s critical evaluation of cultural relativism every society has their own beliefs on how things should be done.

in America, there is a vast array of cultural differences, Rachels and Rachels believed cultural relativism to be prominent in understanding morality. When reviewing Rachels’ and Rachels’ five pillars of cultural relativism, the grandest theme is understanding that there is no one moral code across societal borders. Everyone’s cultural code holds no special status amongst the group. The five pillars also express that there is arrogance in judging another’s cultural morals as inferior to our own.

We as Americans, Haitians, French, Spanish, Indian, etc., have our own justifications of what is right and wrong. For some it could be as simple as leaving elbows off the dinner table and for others, it could be as complex as praying at set times during fast. In the Callatian society, it is customary to eat the body of your dead father while in Greek society cremation was regarded as the natural way to honor the dead. These two ceremonies honor the dead in their own moral style. The first thought that comes to my mind is complete ignorance in how the Galatians are morally unjust and wrong to eat the body of the dead. This is the exact effect of a lack of knowledge of cultural relativism. If I were to live amongst the Galatians, my morals would mirror theirs. According to cultural relativism, the right thing is defined by each culture in its own way. I would not have a reference to upholding a different cultural view.

Rachels and Rachels regard societal condemnation as unacceptable, according to cultural relativism, even if that means accepting universal injustice. Oppression anywhere is viewed as an imbalance, but in some societies, oppression is culturally accepted and valued. Cultural Relativism tells us that our opinions of that political “difference” is wrong. That’s the “tough pill to swallow” with cultural relativism- accepting a society’s culture in the way it chooses to run its government. What may seem fair to us, and probably a wide range of societies, may not be equally valued in another society.

To conclude, cultural relativism is a forward way of thinking. I believe it breaks the barriers of cultural abnormalities and generally brings about acceptance among people. I personally have dealt with cultural differences in my own private relationships, and the lack of understanding of another’s culture brought about great hardships and disputes. Even if it means tolerating or accepting practices that are abusive. This way of thinking could actually be revolutionary across borders in learning the basic concept of empathy for another’s way of life. After reading this book, I will come to practice this belief as a new moral compass; a new form of acceptance for the many nations and views of this world. I would hope it to be that easy for the world to place this type of value on morality.

Introduction

Anthropology has five guiding principles but in this assignment, I am going to compare two guiding principles which are ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Before I proceed with my assignment I would like to first define these two terms in a simple and understandable way. Ethnocentrism is the strong belief that ones own culture is superior to all others, it is a way of thinking in which a person judges other cultures based on the idea and beliefs of his or her own culture. Oppositely cultural relativism is a theory that states that beliefs, customs, and morality exist in relation to the particular culture from which originate and are not absolute.

According to Eshetu (2017), Cultural relativism might be the way that a person’s beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to their social background. This express the right or improper to an individual is tradition special and there may be not a standard evaluation to the morals and therefore no ideal to gauge assorted cultures. Heshe admits that cultural relativism is known as anthropologists’ understanding that all cultures have their legal rights and equality in worth and therefore each of the cultures are lawful for human survival. Ethnocentrism, however, performs by using a set of one’s traditions as the base for judging other people’s cultures. Whatever the sum of liberalism or open-mindedness, consumers will forever screen symptoms of ethnocentrism as a building block of other people’s cultures will affect in the urge to examine with their unique cultures.

The two points share a typical aim in that they take a look at the ideas by which individuals relate with people young and old from assorted cultural backgrounds by sending their behaviors among others. This essay analyses both of these principles with all the end goal to support out the one which is more aim. One of the most goal of cultural relativism and ethnocentrism

Eshetu (2017) carry on saying that Cultural relativism allows for folks to determine mixed behavior, traits and values as appropriate inside cultural values in the offered group. These concepts in many cases are a spinoff within the aimed sets of cultural and ethnic values and norms that differ from one cultural group to a different one. Below the cultural relativism idea, no society can certainly be named as good with the other considering the fact that all values, norms and traits are found inside their specified tradition that is definitely inappropriate in other cultures.

Cultural relativism should be to an extent could possibly take part with human lawful rights, can stop society from growing and fails to enable an individual to disclose a tradition is lesser to theirs. It’s constantly important to note that cultural relativism provides with regards to the concept that there’s no universal technique within the ethical values that guide the human carry out. Nevertheless, all society has it possesses a structure that guides its member’s ethical code but differs from a single tradition to a different by Tilley (2007). Heshe states that Cultural relativism serves as a cross-cultural basic principle that is definitely relevant throughout cultures and not strained inside of a person culture. During the occasion where exactly it happens to be not understood in such a context, it leads to ethicists envisaging an intra-cultural relativism and hence one society’s ethical requirements could possibly be denied.

According to Booth (2014), an important search at ethnocentrism expose the way it is considered the opposite of cultural relativism in the followers of your philosophy compare other cultures to their very own cultures. In such cases, the follower is compelled to understand higher lifestyle as a lot more excellent when compared to the other cultures and hence it truly is dependent on a comparison in between the cultures. Ethnocentrism sees many different cultural points such as myths, folktales, and proverbs, as well as a language among most people. Regardless, unlike cultural relativism, ethnocentrism allows individuals to evacuate an additional lifestyle, do a comparison of cultures and conclude to a tradition that is definitely increased outstanding to another. Heshe also reveals that ethnocentrism could in fact be considered from three many different concentrations including a favorable, adverse and overwhelming stage. On a helpful level, ethnocentrism is viewed because the level of see by which one personal habit of daily life is a most appreciated in comparison with other people’s cultures which are the most typical feelings of individuals if they relate their cultures to some people.

At this degree, it presents folks a sense of people-hood, site in history and team identity. Destructive ethnocentrism appears about when one group is perceived given that the middle of almost everything and most of the people scaled to its reference. An intense case of negativity is led to whenever a group forces its rule on other folks foremost to vices that include apartheid, holocaust and genocide among the other folks. Booth (2017)

Examples of ethnocentrism in Africa

Tribalism, the apartheid Era in South Africa, Xenophobia, racism, and another example of ethnocentrism is colonialism. Colonialism can be defined as cultural domination with enforced social change. Colonialism refers to the social system in which the political defeat by one society of another leads to “cultural domination with enforced social change”. A good example to look at when examining colonialism is the British overtaking of India. The British had little understanding of the culture in India which created a lot of problems and unrest during their rule

Conclusion

The above information reveals that cultural relativism is often a favorable mindset in comparison with ethnocentrism which is negative. Besides that, cultural relativism motivates a sense of recognizing with many cultures and treating their uniqueness with respect and therefore no conditions of extremism would be dealt with. Ethnocentrism principally perceives other cultures as inferior to an individual’s society and hence encourages higher to offer a bit more total focus on the negative facets of the culture in relation to theirs.

Conclusion In such cases, cultural relativism is more aim as compared with ethnocentrism for it gives space with the people to perceive patterns, values, and morals within the context of higher cultural values also, the same transpires even as relating to other cultures. This is due to as observed, although it has its shortcomings, cultural relativism encourages peaceful existence concerning members of various groups for it eliminates situations of extremists and enmity among cultures. Therefore, it quickly builds pressure and conflict in a every society, whereas cultural relativism seeks to stop and stop to the opposite.

References

1. Booth, K., 2014. Strategy and Ethnocentrism (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
2. Eshetu, Y., 2017. Understanding Cultural Relativism: A Critical Appraisal of the Theory. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 4(6), pp.24-30.

Understanding Cultural Relativism: Definition and Origins

The world is composed of many different groups of people who have unique perspectives on what they believe the proper way of thriving and surviving is. Each group and civilization has created their own unique culture and systems that have lead people to view life and lifestyle differently, and has raised the question of whether we can determine who’s ultimately right and wrong. According to Cultural Relativism, we can’t. Cultural relativism is an established theory that sates that an individual’s set of personal beliefs, values, customs, ethics, and activities are relative to each individual within their own social context and cultural background, and should be understood by others in those terms. It implies that there is no universal standard of morality by supporting the idea that there is no universal “right” or “wrong”, and that instead these are very culture-specific; what is considered to be right in one society, may be considered a total taboo in another. It was established in the early decades of the 20th century as a postulate statement in anthropological research by Franz Boas, a German-American anthropologist and pioneer of modern anthropology who has been referred to as “The father of American Anthropology”. People who believe in the concept of cultural relativism tend to not judge other societies and their practices no matter how controversial they may be. The purpose is not to change one’s beliefs, but to accept and see the value and worth of other cultural groups.

Cultural Relativism in Practice: The Treatment of Women in Middle Eastern Countries

One of the biggest examples of cultural relativism in today’s society is the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries compared to the treatment of women in western countries. In Muslim countries, the way a woman is treated can be considered as harsh to many people who are not part of that culture. In these countries’ women aren’t free and must obey sexist social norms, such as only being able to work or travel with a written permission of her husband or male guardian. They tend to live a life full of restrictions set by males and are seen mostly as housewives who’s main and sole purpose is serving and obeying her husband and family. Despite the clear inequality between men and women that takes place in these countries for many of these women freedom of expression and equality is not something they consider meaningful, or any less strive to obtain. Instead, they see our western way of life as irresponsible and a danger for their native culture, bringing with it the disintegration of family structure and social breakdown. It’s important to recognize that not all Middle Eastern women believe and accept this way of life. In fact, there are a few feminist organizations settled in those countries, but they tend to be small and therefore lack the force to make a significant input and political change. Islamic fundamentalists tend to be against any alteration or advancement that deals with the treatment of women and their rights; they fear it will ultimately lead to an end of male domination in both family and society. Western countries may see these unjust laws, discriminatory constitutions, and biased mentalities and immediately label them as unfair, but cultural relativists oppose this. As mentioned above, they believe that even though we may not agree with the living conditions of women in Middle Eastern countries, we must simply accept their culture and their way of life. In fact, a true cultural relativist may not even see a problem as they don’t believe there are objective standards by which society can be judged. They may not share or practice these customs, but they will never criticize since, to them, each culture is entitled to their own beliefs and accepted practices. Although it’s general message may seem compelling and, in some way ideal, it does bring about several concerns such as: are cultural relativists willing to overlook even the most bizarre and extremist of practices?

Cultural Relativism vs. International Human Rights

Several issues have come about between cultural relativists and the International Human Rights Peace commission; an organization whose aim is to advocate, promote and protect human rights by propagating the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights across the nation states. Relativists hold the idea that various freedoms have different meanings in different societies. Some human rights that to many of us matter such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of association, or freedom of movement are not regarded by them as a requirement imposed by international law. They claim that substantive human rights standards can vary among different cultures and therefore what may be considered lawful in one country, may be a complete rights violation in another. These believes create concern regarding the creation of the IHRP; Since there should be no judgement between cultures how will the IHRP handle certain human rights violation cases? And under what authority will this judgment be made? The absence of a centralized International organ weakens and makes it hard for one to give core meaning to international human right norms. But, if one disregards the human rights branch because of the lack of an enforcement mechanism, then the concept of international law as a whole should be disregarded as well. So, can cultural relativism coexist with human rights? Here is where the concept of natural human rights comes into play. Natural rights are rights that are independent of laws and customs of any particular culture or government; they are inherited when are born by virtue of human nature. However, it begins to get difficult when trying to establish what exactly those rights are; what are we entitled to? If you have ever read the American Declaration of Independence you may say some of the basic rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or property if you we replace it with Locke’s trinity.

The Concept of Natural Human Rights and Cultural Relativism

The concept of natural rights is closely related to the theory of Natural law- ideology that sees law as an expression of the will of God that can be discerned through proper faith and reason. Although there are several known versions of this theory, the longest standing and therefore most influential is that of catholic priest Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argued that morality was important for human life and that being a good person was an essential part of the plan that God had for each one of us. Aquinas, just as any other catholic or believer, believed that God made all humans beings in His own image, and theorized that God equipped all humans with the proper tools needed to differentiate good from bad. This idea later became known as the Natural Law Theory. Aquinas argued that God created the world in accordance with natural laws- a body of goal driven, predictable, and unchanging principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct that help life be sustainable and allows for all functions to run smoothly. This theory is based on the idea that God wants us to want things, specifically good thing things. God essentially instilled in humans the intuitive desire for things that he designed to be best for us and we “discover” these by faith. One of the things that all humans desire and seek is self-preservation. We are all born with a need to preserve our own life or a survival instinct that stops us from doing things that cause us harm. This means that we see our lives as valuable. Because we recognize the value in our lives, reason leads us to see that others have valuable lives as well: my life is valuable and your life is like my life, therefore your life is valuable too. From there we derive the belief that life is a natural right and that killing is a violation of natural law. Same thing with liberty; we all seek to be free to make our own choices, so we see the value of being independent and therefor see how freedom for everyone is essential. The human desire for love and acceptance is another trait that all of us humans share. Because of our natural instinct to be accepted and be a part of a community, we avoid taking actions that might turn someone against us or that might hurt one of our “group members”, which also explains why we feel shame and guilt when we do so. Although Aquinas thoughts derived from his beliefs in the bible and in God, we don’t necessarily need these to understand natural law. Instead, we can use our own instincts to show us the basic rights and derive the natural law from them. The importance of these basic rights should be applied and thought to the same level as Jus Cogens norms; you don’t consent to them but no derogation is permitted.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Natural Law Theory

Of course, as with everything else in life, the Natural Law theory has raised many questions and has been subject to loads of criticism. People make the argument that if God did indeed create us with the ability to recognize and seek good, then why do people violate natural laws all the time? Ignorance is one of explanations to this question. Sometimes we may seek what we think is good, but we’re in fact wrong because of our ignorance. Emotion is also a good explanation as to why people do wrong. Even though were rational creatures, we also tend to be very emotional ones. At times even though it may be evident to us what we should do our reason is overpowered by our emotions and end up leading us to do the thing that we know we shouldn’t be doing. Going back to our example of the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries; men may believe that them having full authority over woman is the way it should be, be in reality they might just be ignorant to the concept of equality. And if the not the case, then their emotional attachment to power and their fear of losing causes them to overlook reason and continue to mistreat woman and continue with their discriminatory laws and biased mentalities.

Conclusion: Balancing Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights

After stating my arguments, we can conclude that cultural relativism isn’t a sufficient argument against the creation of the international body of human rights protection (IHRP). There are indeed specific human rights that should be protected, respected and that not even cultural traditions or political backgrounds can override. Some of these rights include the right to life, liberty, and protection. Anyone who violates these could and should be held accountable and punished by law. We are all human beings born with the same desires such as self-preservation, freedom, acceptance, and happiness. We are all able to see the value in these natural rights, and therefore can conclude that the protection of them is something that should be universally ensured.

“Six for me and nine for you”- simplest way to explain relativism. It is not about wrong or right, true or false, actually, it depends on people how they see a particular situation. I find myself in favour of relativism in multiculturalism, further, the essay will discuss some of the advantages of relativism in multiculturalism.

In order to bring more talent, skillful workers or may to handle situations like ageing population etc most countries around the world used the strategy of migration. ‘Official multiculturism policy was adopted by the Canadian Federal State in 1971b and was entrenched in 1982 constitution.’(Guo, S., & Wong, L. L. (2015), p 107). As Canada is welcoming more and more immigrants and became the largest multicultural country in the world. Migration is not just of people but their traditions, culture, especially their native languages. But moving to a country like Canada, people to adjust with the new traditions, the culture of the people whom they are going to share the land. Languages play an important role, after all its about communication.

People from the Middle East and South Asia have very different rituals than the people follows in Canada. For example, love marriage or being in relationships before marriage etc are treated as bad and very shameful in these countries. But here in Canada, it is totally normal. Again it is not about who is wrong or right, it is just about the society whom you belongs to.

Every individual has its own perspective towards a particular thing and that is based on their upbringing, family, culture, surrounding, and personal thoughts. These differences actually create a strong bond of cooperation among people. It actually teaches how to cooperate with others even having so many differences and accepting each other’s limitations. Different people from different parts of the world with different definitions of success. Every individual is doing something in order to pursue their goals by implementing their experiences in life in a way that works best for them. Humanity is above all religions, cultures, traditions, rituals. That is the only reason that people agree to help others without any condition. They know each other or not doesn’t matter when you respect humanity by leaving everything side.

There is no universal standard to judge what is wrong or right. All in all, a very famous phrase suggests that ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do. A person should be enough adaptive in order to survive in new environment.

References

1. Guo, S., & Wong, L. L. (2015). Revisiting Multiculturalism in Canada : Theories, Policies and Debates. Rotterdam [The Netherlands]: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.myucwest.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1167981&site=eds-live

Culture is the way we live as humans. It encompasses beliefs, practices, values, attitude, laws, norms, artifacts, symbols, knowledge and everything that a person leans and shares as a member of society. Cultural relativism is where one suspends one’s cultural roots and understand by seeing another culture according to the standards of that culture. Although having a common culture is a way for us to coherently relate with one another it is also important for us to open our eyes to the changes in our surroundings and to be able to adapt to them. Imagine a place where everyone thinks his/her own culture is superior to others. Of course our perspective can help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong. Taking into consideration the continuous change in different countries, our own country is taking its share in change as well. The Filipinos have taken the diverse cultures being brought to the Philippines rather well. Acknowledging, respecting and beginning to understand others cultural beliefs brings us closer together. Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. Since the Philippines is a growing and developing country, we are open and very hospitable to foreign cultures and are starting to adapt to those traditions. Although it is not ethical to judge a book by its cover, we must learn to politely reject or accept things that are no longer aligned to our moral values. Cultural relativism has made a huge impact and change in the Philippines that we are experiencing both the good and bad changes it has brought to us. The Philippines is changing and adapting, both for our benefit and a possible downfall.

The mindset of the Filipinos right now, especially the younger generations, is to keep up with the trends and to climb the social ladder. Not thinking if their actions are benefiting to the society. The issue of the younger generations is that they do not understand the true nature of cultural relativism which is to bring people together by understanding and accepting the differences of the diverse cultures. As the saying goes, “change is good” and it has proven that it truly is good. By learning to accept and adapt to the different cultures brought upon the Philippines, we have become better than we were before. We are slowly changing for the survival of our country. Our nation is shifting and this is due to the influence of other Asian countries and the Western countries. Humanity is constantly changing, growing and developing. And when the concept of relativism is applied it encourages the ability, capacity and potential of people since there is no fixed standard as to what is morally right and wrong, it is based purely on a persons’ perspective.

Cultural relativism promotes cooperation in a system and it is visible in our nation already. The treaties and agreements made by the president of the Philippines is making a difference for our little country. We are making ties and are able to unite with countries much capable than ours. Although we are different we are able to form stronger bonds with others due to the different definition of success which may lead to potential achievements. By embracing our differences we are able to connect and understand each other better. It also creates a society where equality is possible and attainable. Cultural relativism has changed the rights of women along the centuries and has allowed changes in the society. It has made a huge impact towards the education system, political values, women’s rights, social issues and many more. It allows people to define themselves without contradicting the moral code of others. That division produces and promotes equality.

It encourages respect and understanding in a system. When people come from different cultures, they have to learn to adapt to one another in order to avoid offending anyone. And although they are adapting to one another, they are still distinguished as themselves since there is a clarity of who they are. A society can evolve and develop because there is an equal and pure level of respect for one another. And because of that respect it creates a potentially judgement free society. People don’t react because they find it wrong, they react because it is new to them. You do not receive judgement from others because the only person judging you is yourself. People who might disagree with you are those that have set their own standards for themselves.

There are so many positive possibilities that cultural relativism has to offer but it also has a negative side to it that can cause a country’s downfall.

Cultural relativism could cause chaos. Since there is no fixed standard for moral ethics it becomes harder to judge what is right or wrong. If your moral ethics says it is alright to do bad things then it becomes hard to question someone’s moral code. Even if the law states that it is bad to do this but you find it in your moral code that it is right, what could possibly stop you from committing that act. In this scenario there is no hardbound way to protect the members of the society. That makes the society a battle for the strongest to emerge on top. With that it limits moral progress by holding people back because it is reflected in the laws and customs of the culture.

It limits the progress of humanity. If you take away the capability to judge one moral standard to the other or simply comparing a new culture to an old one then the definition of good and bad becomes uncertain. A country’s definition of success is no longer valid because each is successful in its own way. The difference of the cultures in terms of its takes on issues and problems cannot be judged since they have separate beliefs of what is right and wrong.

So in this perspective cultural relativism is either good or bad for a society to prosper. Depending on how cultural relativism has affected the people, it can change a country for its own good or it can bring a country to its suffering. Moral standards make sense in a person’s culture. By creating individualized cultures, on singular or larger scales, it does become easier to keep and embrace the traditions that humanity has developed over the millennia. The best way to adapt to the changes it brings is to simply bring awareness to the public and to the upcoming generations in order to promote understanding as early as possible.

Both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism contradict one another due to having their own set of beliefs and , therefore, they share no common ground. Both types of culture are different from one another and have different strengths and weaknesses. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at other cultures and judge it by the standard of one’s very own culture. Basically, it’s the idea that one’s culture is the main standard that other cultures should be measured by. This type of behavior is normal because not everyone could be open-minded. Most of the time, when we encounter people who have different ideas, beliefs, etc than us, we typically try to seek a common ground or try to reject it. For example, as a kid who grew up with Asian parents, it was taught that looking into people’s eyes was disrespectful when I’m talking to them, especially when they were older than me. However, with Western’s beliefs, this type of behavior was encouraged — that, when speaking to anyone, making direct eye-contact meant that you were interactively listening to them. For instance, my parents would be considered to be an ethnocentrist as they would consider others’ beliefs to be confusing to understand and therefore become prone to making quick criticism about them. Very often, people that are ethnocentric aren’t aware that they’re comparing another culture’s with theirs. To these people, the culture of an ethnocentric person are, essentially what is considered to be ‘normal’ and everything else outside of the box would be considered as ‘abnormal’.

Another example could be seen with Adolf Hitler during the Nazi Germany. Through history, we can see many choices leaders often make is through ethnocentrism. During this heinous time period, Adolf ingrained the belief that humans born with blue eyes and blond hair were the superior race into his citizens. Jewish people were depicted to be evil and are sent to the concentration camps. Everyone in that time period worshipped Hitler and agreed to his ideology. Those who did not were judged harshly and were punished for their disagreements. The people who were sent to concentration camps obviously didn’t deserve the torture they received, but options that differ from Hitler was very much oppressed and Germany became a nation where it would only be at peace as long as they follow in Hitler’s beliefs and ideology.

Continuing with the Hitler example, there were many strengths found upon how he led his people through the method ethnocentrism. First, before Hitler even rose to power, Germany was falling into depression from war. Children were starving to death. The citizens of Germany were burning money and all valuables they owned just to create fires to keep them warm. The nation, itself, was broken and Hitler reunited them all together by using a minority group as a scapegoat. The prejudice against one minority group created this extreme ethnocentrism environment in Germany. But, under it, all remain loyal to the ideology and beliefs and does not criticize against it. Most of the people in Germany as well as the soldiers were devoted to Hitler Therefore, in conclusion, the biggest points to ethnocentrism is that it allows people to come together and speak in a collective voice that, for better or worse, shape our world. Ethnocentrism could wind up having both a positive or a negative effect on the world. If there is one problem that needs to be addressed, then ethnocentrism could allow people to speak with one voice in a negative way as well, ass seen with the Nazi’s culture. https://connectusfund.org/6-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-ethnocentrism )

Some weaknesses on ethnocentrism is that the decisions people make can often be based on “unrealistic comparison.” Ethnocentrism has always has the attitude that one’s culture is more superior to the others.Every person on this planet has their own definition of “normal,” so that means they all see things differently than most people. Therefore most would find themselves judging another culture based on “perspectives gained without the use of wisdom.” When people draw their own conclusions using ethnocentrism, it based on their foundation. Their decision-making skills does not equate with facts, but are generalized with opinions. when using ethnocentrism as their foundation for decision-making are based on generalizations and opinions instead of facts. Ethnocentrism can cause societal polarization, meaning segregation. Throughout history it is proven that most people are scared of people, things, etc that are different than them and they find it difficult to embrace that change and diversity, therefore, they reject it — refusing to develop through intermingling ideas. Two groups whose culture conflicts and contradict with one another and view each other as being the one with the inferior culture is an example of societal polarization. Especially when both aren’t willing to compromise with one another because they fear change and therefore, they choose to take sides than to get along with everybody. When you’re first exposed to something different, the first and natural response is to seek out the negative parts of that culture, finding the things you dislike or find strange about it. Ethnocentrism enhances the negativity because it’s sole goal is to strengthen their individualized superiority.

Cultural relativism is the idea that “a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another.” A social scientist, Franz Boas, who had worked with people discovered this. This is a fact: People change and when they do, their culture will change. Humanity is always evolving and adapting to the changes around them. When you enter a room wil air conditioning on at full blast, you hug yourself, trying to find ways to stay warm. However, as time passes, before you even realize it, you had gotten used to the temperature and was fully focused on your professor’s lecture. This is similar to what cultural relativism is as it implements the ability to evolve and adapt. Even the definitions of “right” and “wrong” can change when people and their culture change. Cultural relativism “ eliminates the rigidity that societies have in place regarding ethics, conduct, and reasoning.” It also means that there are no actual definitions that are in place for a society. Cultural relativism promotes an individualistic perspective which governs how a person acts, thinks, and responds. Each person can set their own moralistic codes which they follow.

Cultural relativism promotes cooperation and throughout the centuries, it is seen in history that humanity is strong because we all put aside all our differences and work together, This could be depicted during the world war one and two. Without allies to assist the United States, the world would be a very different place because we would have lost. Every individual have a different way of thinking and that’s due to their upbrings, how they were raised, what they experienced in life, etc. By embracing the many differences each and every person has, it creates a society where equality is possible. Cultural relativism creates a society without judgment.However, it is hard not to judge other people. It’s simply natural instincts. Even the simple sigh of relief, feeling grateful someone’s bad luck isn’t yours is a sign of judgement. Theoretically, under cultural relativism, such judgments are not present. People who might disagree with certain aspects of another’s opinion are able to set up their own codes, values and standards for their own individualities. Basically, Instead of worrying about others, you only worry about yourself. Another positive thing about cultural relativism is that It stops cultural conditioning. People tend to adapt their attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs to the people they are with on a regular basis. This is cultural conditioning and it prevents people from having an individualistic perspective. Cultural relativism stops this.

Weaknesses of Cultural relativism are that it could potentially create a society full of personal bias. People will typically be drawn to those who share similar ideas, thoughts and feelings with them and so, segregation will occur. When people are given the power to define their own moral codes, they will do it based on their own personal beliefs and bias. There won’t be a group perspective, and therefore, would create chaos. Ultimately, people who follow their own codes will not have “ right” and “wrong” and therefore will pursue the life they want without any restriction thanks to cultural relativism. For example, if there is a bag in the store that you like, you can steal it as long as your own moral code grants and says that is the right thing to do. There will be no rules and therefore, society has no way of protecting themselves due to the fact that everyone is on their own and they’re the one who’s responsible for their own actions. It creates a system that is Dawrwainian, where only the strongest could survive. Cultural relativism allows people to come together and combine their strengths, however, it also can encourage them all to draw away from one another. C.S. Lewis, in work, Hell from The Screwtape Letters, wrote about a place where people are separating themselves from one another to avoid the demons each person has with them because they do not know what sort of demons they all have and what rules each one abides. No one wants to die or lose anything and so, the natural response was self-preservation. Everyone avoided one another for the sake of protecting themselves. Another example on the negative side of cultural relativism is a true story of a young African-American teen who was walking down the alley, wearing his hoodie with his hood up. His hands were stuffed in his pockets and there was a bulge there. In this scenario, there are two assumptions. The bulge was a gun or a package of candy. Regardless of what it is, the decision to act becomes a right one because the person’s culture allowed them to turn their perception into truths through their very own bias.

Cultural relativism is more prone to social change because it starts with curiosity. An example of this is someone from my life. My friend Casey is a catholic, but she is very curious about everything in the world.

For instance, Casey is a cultural relativist; she prefers to look at other cultures in terms of what their practices bring to them. She believes that if a tribe paints their faces for religious ceremonies, there must be a good reason why they do that. Is there a practical reason for it, or is it symbolic? If symbolic, where do the symbols come from? These questions allow a closer examination of the practices of others than ethnocentrism. This doesn’t imply that a relativist, like Casey, doesn’t have strong beliefs of her own. Rather, other cultures are simply not judged with reference to one’s own culture. Again, this often has to be trained into people.

Throughout history philosophers have developed ethical theories that attempt to distinguish what is morally right and wrong. Although these theories differ from one another, they all can be applied to multiple aspects of our society. Some examples of these theories include Utilitarianism, Cultural Relativism, Social Contract Theory, and Kantianism. The differences between each of these theories are as follows.

Utilitarianism focuses on the outcome of an action as the primary motivation and whether or not that conduct is ethical (Hill, Utilitarianism PowerPoint, Slide 3). The problem with this theory is that it doesn’t give considerations to whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions. They also run into an additional issue because nobody can be certain about the outcome that results from a particular action, because the future is unpredictable.

Cultural Relativism is the view that all ethical systems are all equally valid and no one system is superior (Hill, Ethical Relativism PowerPoint, Slide 7). However, this causes us to lose perspective and it becomes impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. If the only qualifier to make a person’s beliefs, values, and practices ethically correct is based on that person’s own culture, then we are constantly assuring that whatever action being performed is correct.

The Social Contract Theory states that people will band together in order to avoid being in a “state of nature” (Hill, Social Contract Theory PowerPoint, Slide 5). One issue with this theory is that the political authority itself does not require a contract for its legitimacy. This theory also excludes certain parties such as disabled people and animals.

In the theory of Kantianism, the basis of whether or not a course of action is morally permissible will depend on if it conforms to what he terms the moral law, the categorical imperative (Hill, Kantian Ethics, page 1). Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exemptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual circumstances are presented and the way in which they are dealt with. In determining one’s duty in a moral situation, his theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible.

Immanuel Kant was a famous philosopher during the 18th century Enlightenment era. His ethical system formed as a reaction to David Hume’s view of ethics. Hume believed that moral judgments express our feelings and that morality was based upon the sympathy we have for our fellow human beings (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.1). If humans have the proper sentiments, they were moral; if they lack these sympathies, they were immoral. Kant opposed of this view and thought that ethics must be taken from a sense of duty dictated by reason. His view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our lives. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves instead of the outcomes.

Kantian philosophy is complex but, the basic ideas are surprisingly simple. His most basic belief was human freedom. In virtue of being a human being, you have rights, dignity, and intrinsic moral worth/value according to Kant (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.5). These moral rights and duties cover all societies and all contexts, so Kant’s view doesn’t have the problems that cultural relativism does. He also says that a person is good or bad depending on the intentions of their actions and not on the consequences that follow. One can have moral worth only if they are motivated by morality (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.5). This means that if a person’s emotions or desires cause them to do something, then that action can’t give them moral worth. Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty.

Kant described two types of common commands given by reason; the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperative dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end. The categorical imperative however, dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity (Hill, Kant’s Ethical Theory, Slide 5). The categorical imperative has two different formulations which he claims both say the same thing.

The first formulation states ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature. (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.9)’ This means you are not allowed to do something that you wouldn’t be willing to allow everyone else to do. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself either. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you have to keep your own promises. The second formulation states, “Act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means” (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.9). This formulation introduces the idea of respect for people. Individuals are not a means to an end, instead they are ends in themselves with their own goals and purposes.

Kant provided a few examples to test the categorical imperative. Consider one example, making a false promise. The question that has to be asked is if we can consistently will the principle, “whenever in need of money make a false promise to get it?” We can’t, since a world where everyone acts according to this would be impossible. This is easy to demonstrate. In such a world:

False promises would be useful because there would be persons to believe them

False promises would not be useful because, in a short time, nobody would believe them.

On the one hand, we need the necessary conditions for false promises to be successful, people believing in our lies. On the other hand, the result of universal false promising would be that no lies would be believed. Such a world is not even possible.

The categorical imperative commands actions in two different ways. It specifically forbids or requires certain actions, which are called perfect duties. Some examples of these would be do not lie, do not steal, etc. It also commands that certain goals be pursued which are called imperfect duties. These include helping others, developing our talents, and treating others with respect. When we universalize a maxim that violates a perfect duty, we will have an inconsistent world. When we universalize a maxim that violates an imperfect duty, we will have an unpleasant world (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.12).

Now that we’ve explored the basics of Kantianism, let’s compare it to other ethical theories such as Utilitarianism. Though both attempt to answer questions about morality and behavior, the two theories have many fundamental differences. According to Kant, we should look at our intentions. On the other hand, Utilitarian’s believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. The issue with this, however, is that it could potentially use people as mere means. This may lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good. Utilitarianism sometimes involves the sacrifice of an individual’s happiness or life in order to promote the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of misery (Hill, Utilitarianism PowerPoint, Slide 5).

It is also easier to calculate an action as morally right in Kantian ethics than in utilitarian ethics. Kantian theory offers more precision than utilitarianism. It says one can generally determine if somebody is being used as a mere means, even if the impact on human happiness is inconclusive. Kantians consider only the proposals for an action that occur to them and check that these proposals use no other as mere means. Utilitarian’s however compare all available acts to see which has the best effects (Hill, Utilitarianism PowerPoint, Slide 7). Although utilitarianism have a larger scope than Kantianism, it is a timelier process. The decision-making method of calculating all the potential costs and benefits of an action is extremely time consuming and leaves little time for promoting happiness, which is the Utilitarian’s goal.

Another ethical theory that I will contrast to Kantianism is Cultural Relativism. This theory states that every culture’s moral beliefs and rituals are no more true or false, better or worse than anyone else’s (Hill, Ethical Relativism PowerPoint, Slide 7). Some of the main issues include social behaviors that must be understood in their cultural frame and, therefore, can be justified as legitimate in their own culture. This justifies all forms of evil: dehumanization, rape, slavery, and genocide. Different people in different contexts need different moral codes. We can’t all have the same moral code because everyone lives in a different world with different demands, expectations, histories, symbols, and problems to overcome.

Another popular ethical theory is the Social Contract Theory. Some believe that social contract is a useful tool to understand the limits of political power and the scope of human rights. However, the process used in making this claim is seriously flawed. The theory says that morality exists only as the product of social contracts, yet we are left with no basis to assert that a contract or law is immoral (Hill, Social Contract Theory PowerPoint, Slide 7). The scope that the contracts reach is not clear. Social contracts also exclude certain parties from the moral community, thereby leaving out the rights of handicapped people, people in other societies, and animals. According to Kant, cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans. This means that it’s in the self-interest of humanity to treat animals humanely and refrain from pointless cruelty to animals (Hill, Kantian Ethics, p.13).

There are, however, a few objections against Kantianism that have emerged. The objection comes from Kant’s persistence that telling the truth must be universal, and that lying cannot be considered moral in any circumstance. I’ll use an example to help demonstrate this. “Imagine you notice a madman chasing someone and that someone hides from the madman without him noticing. The madman comes up to you and asks if you saw anyone else around” (Hill, Kant’s Ethical Theory PowerPoint, Slide 19). The categorical imperative would make us tell the truth even if it risks the life of an innocent person. However, this apparent contradiction doesn’t prove any inconsistency with his original formulation of the ‘moral law’. According to him, moral actions do not derive their value from the expected consequences. If we lie for any reason, or for any expected outcome, we are only treating the receiver of the lie as a ‘means’ to another ‘end’, which denies the rationality of the other person.

As described above, it’s evident that Kant’s view towards duty, good will, and moral worth are critical aspects in determining ethical decisions. In his view, each human has inherent worth and intrinsic value. Therefore, we should have the ability to reason and choose the right behavior. The categorical imperative further enforces the idea that we shouldn’t do what we wouldn’t want others to do to us. Compared to other theories, Kantianism is the best. The issue with Utilitarianism is that it doesn’t consider whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions. Kant’s focus is on the intentions rather than the outcome, so it bypasses this problem easily. Cultural Relativism has good qualities, but it ends up contradicting itself. This becomes an issue because if everyone’s doing what they think is right because of their culture than no one’s wrong. Kant’s use of the categorical imperative could help this because you would have to ask yourself if everyone did the action, would it be possible? The Social Contract Theory also shows flaws when the political authority itself does not require a contract for its legitimacy. For these reasons, I conclude that Kantianism is the most suitable ethical theory.