Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
Cultural Relativism believes that one set of morals will not adequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in the world. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits every situation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules. Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and ethical standards to the community. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specific culture, history, and individuality.
Even Nietzsche’s normative claims concerning a healthy will to power fail to adequately address any ethical problems inherent in his ideas. However, it wou... ... middle of paper ... ...f-affirmation. However, this would create a world in which the concerns of suffering, justice, and personal freedoms were an afterthought, and it is hard to see how civilization could flourish in any modern conception of the idea. While these moral ideas may be empty creations to Nietzsche, they often times allow the condition for the possibility of happiness and self-affirmation. A final problem with Nietzsche’s views in their application is they treat the individual as a completely autonomous being driven by only a “will to power”.
These distinct arguments are examples of one fundamental idea(). There is no objective truth and it is a simple point of logic we all live in different socities and we all have different cultural backgrounds. When one culture ... ... middle of paper ... ...other customs or beliefs based on what is morally right or wrong because there is no correct answer and we have to think of what we as individuals think is right or wrong based on our opinions but on our social standings. We need to keep and open mind at all times and not be to quick to judged others or otherwise it would be cause us to become very judgmental toward others because we have been taught to accept what is acceptable and reject what is unacceptable in our society(). Cultural Relativism displays the prejudices of our society Our feelings may not always tell us the truth that is why we need to be more open about discovering what the truth is not matter what it can be().
Is it all relative? Moral relativism is a widespread theory that can be used to explain the differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Ruth Benedict describes relative morality as a concept based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures. He argues that many cultures are so contrasting when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle that they cannot be unified under one universal moral code that governs all of humanity. Conversely however, James Rachels, author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, does not subscribe to the theory of moral relativism.
Are there no universal moral truths? In response, conventional ethical relativism puts forth the notion that there are indeed no objective moral truths. In other words, “there are no absolute or objective moral standards that apply to all people everywhere”, which would make all moral beliefs justified as a result of cultural relativism (98, 100). Another response to this moral dilemma would be that moral objectivism still holds because morals
Cases in which there simply could not be a world in which everyone acts on the maxim because everyone's trying would be destructive of everyone's continuing ability to do so: "Some actions are so constituted that their maxim cannot even be conceived as a universal ... ... middle of paper ... ...to be universal law from our own individual situations,with the knowledge of our social status, natural endowments, race, sex, and what we individually value. Rather, we should ask what principles it would be rational for a person to will that all be governed by were we to make that choice from a 'position of ignorance' about our own individual situations. Behind a veil of ignorance, all persons have the same interests as rational persons. On this "Rawlsian" interpretation, what Kant's CI is really asking is that we act only on maxims that would not conflict with principles that it would be rational to choose as universal law from behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Works Cited "Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals" - Kant "The Categorical Imperative" - Paton "The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory" -LaFollette
Although we, as individuals living in Western society find this practice morally abhorrent, we have no reasonable basis on which to condemn it. We can never really say whether or not a cultural practice is acceptable unless we are able to rid ourselves of our preconceptions and biases. Ridding ourselves of the preconceptions, however, is impossible. This is because; the values one has are dependent on the environment we are exposed to within our culture, the norms of behavior we accept come from the institutions also formed within a particular culture and the cultural bias that taints our opinions of other cultures and the practices. Values are defined as the ideas that are important in life.
The whole premise of moral objectivism is factual and for someone to come in and say it’s wrong just because he thinks it is, can be and has been disagreed with. Mackie strongly believes that we cannot have knowledge of morality because of moral skepticism, or subjectivism. His belief that each culture has a different level of morality and that they all differ. This is seen as malarkey to many people. Objectivists believe that one culture cannot be more moral than another nor righter than another culture.