Conceptual relativism is concerned with truth and knowledge and belongs specifically with the ability of the human mind to construct different realities, people have different versions of realities but there is no one reality as is the same with truth there is no one absolute truth there are only truths. (Lazar 1998)Many authors have described the nature of this in their own languages and this has bought about many different views of conceptual relativism. It was Daniel Little’s belief that conceptual relativism was concerned with the fact that as the world is separated into so many different countries, cultures, religions and beliefs. It would not be possible to only have one theory on the structure of everything inside the world, for all individuals think differently, how can one theory be more plausible than another. (Lazar 1998) Peter Winch had a more radical view and argued that Science had absolutely nothing to do with explanations on what existed. He stated that human beings are more than just physical objects and that if human action was not being understood from the inside, how could the social sciences understand human action at all. He went on to say that the majority of sociology was not in fact a science it was a masked type of philosophy. Winch’s claims against the social sciences caused problems and some ethnomethodological sociologists changed the way they studied society and developed a non scientific route. (Lock 2010)However rationalists such as Popper reject the idea of relativism as he believed that unless all individuals shared the same framework of basic knowledge, there could never be agreements made. (Benton 2001)
From a conceptual relativism viewpoint Philosophers can give their opinions regarding speci...
... middle of paper ...
...s to be very time consuming as a greater depth is sought.(Bryman 2004)
In conclusion conceptual relativism sets out to explain the world in term of the human mind to construct realities, and is concerned with truth and knowledge and radical Social constructionism is concerned with the idea that a variety of phenomena’s are socially constructed. This is then linked with the idea of radical anti-realism in relation to reality and the validity of science. Both are definitely problematic for any claim that the social sciences produce reliable knowledge for if knowledge is only meaningful to one group how can that have the same meanings to another group each individual sees the world through their own glasses so each and every individual holds a different opinion and no one opinion can be correct. How can any methods of research be correct if there is no real truth?
A practicing sociologist has the gift of being able to recognize things that many people spend their entire life in ignorance of. These “things” are what construct an individual person’s sense of reality are ideas that very often differ culture to culture. To further explain this meaning, a person can consider the idea of thunder. In a Westernized culture, many people will hear the loud noise and automatically associate it with a storm. However, in other cultures some people may immediately think that their gods are angry with them and thus cause the sounds in a fit of rage. The interesting thing about this is that both ideas are a direct result of the culture and language in which the individual was raised or adapted into. Their individual
I identify with being a white, Catholic, straight, teenager girl living in Owensboro, Kentucky. I considered those my cultural and societal groups. There is no objective way to pick my real group. With my taste, opinions, characteristics and age constantly changing so are my cultural and societal groups.
Even nowadays, there still an issue that connected with language and related to cultures such as cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is a behavior in one culture that should not be judged by another’s value system which basically is a belief of own culture practice with respect and understand the different of other culture. While ethnocentrism is the opposite of cultural relativism. It is the ideal that one’s own culture is the main standard and better than other cultures such if other’s culture practice is contrary to your cultural norm, that practice would be immediately wrong. In Language Myths provide many examples of this issue in many chapters which I will be discussing below.
(IEP) Relativism is related to the theory of morals where the acceptance of its views and actions is based upon the culture, the people within the society, and the overall outlook based upon a specific group of individuals. The idea and practice of relativism causes much controversy around the world amongst different cultures and societies. Although relativism can vary amongst different cultures based upon the morals, beliefs, and values that are considered accepted, the theory behind relativism can be practiced as a universal theory. Children in society are raised according to how their parents want to raise them. Parents practice the way they raise their children based upon what their society accepts and/or how they were raised by their parents. Children become developed into believing how they were raised is true, therefore, they will one day raise their own children in the exact same practice. As these children grow and develop, they will learn to understand whether or not their actions and what they say are accepted or not accepted within their
Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn’t each individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on anyone else. “American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), tells us, what is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher, universal, or absolute moral standard.” (pg 121) Moral relativism means if does not feel wrong than it must be right.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory is minimally related to that of cultural relativism. Both deal with human nature and the search for peace. But while cultural relativism is in some ways a noteworthy theory, the social contract theory is the only one of the two that could logically work in an active environment.
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
For example: So euthanasia is right for person A if he approves of it, but wrong for person B if she disapproves of it, and the same would go for cultures with similarly diverging views on the subject (13). Cultural relativism seems to many to be a much more plausible doctrine. To many people this is true; supported as it is by a convincing argument and the common conviction that is admirably consistent with social tolerance and understanding in a pluralistic world (Vaughn 15).
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
The ontology of positivism is that the world is external , which can only be studied by observation and measurement. So positivists believe that reality is stable and can be observed and described from an objective viewpoint. After the scientific revolution of social science in 1960s, more and more social scientists thought that social sciences can be built upon the same model as the natural sciences as well. Those scholars, in IR researchers, started using empirical methodology to analyze their subjects. Because in positivists eyes that social scientific inquiry should be objective and empirical, which with the goad of systematization of sociology. In the research field of international relations, quantitative study follows the logic of positivism. As Bruce Berg identified that quantitative research is a positivistic
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.