Cultural Relativism Moral Character PDF

Preview

Summary

Cultural relativism creates an understanding that each culture has developed its own values, beliefs, and practices, and that none of the cultures are necessarily wrong or right.What is Cultural Relativism?Cultural relativism is one of the most important concepts in the field of sociology, affirming...

Description

Cultural relativism creates an understanding that each culture has developed its own values, beliefs, and practices, and that none of the cultures are necessarily wrong or right.

What is Cultural Relativism? Cultural relativism is one of the most important concepts in the field of sociology, affirming and recognizing the relationship between social structure and the day-to-day life of an individual. It is the idea that the system of moral and ethics, which varies from one culture to another, are all equal, and that no system ranks above the other. A person’s belief and value system should be understood in the context of his own culture rather than against the criteria of another culture. Cultural relativism is based on the fact that there is no specific ground rule for what is good or evil. Thus, any judgment on what is true or wrong depends on the society’s rules, culture, and belief system. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is dependent on a person’s cultural perspective. Ultimately, no particular ethical position can be considered the best.

Origin and Overview The concept of cultural relativism as it is known and used today was developed as an analytic tool by Franz Boas, a German-American anthropologist, in the early years of the 20th century. The idea was subsequently popularized by some of his students. However, neither Boas nor the 21st-century relativist, James Wray-Miller coined the term “cultural relativism.” The term was first recorded by Alain Locke in 1924, who used the term to describe Robert Lowie’s cultural relativism. The concept of cultural relativism was an important concept in countering the ethnocentrism that often tarnished research at the time. Ethnocentrism was often conducted by the wealthy white western men and focused on people who belonged to the lower economic class and other races. Ethnocentric judges other people’s cultures based on their own values and beliefs. From their point of view, they frame other cultures as weird and exotic. Cultural relativism creates an understanding that there are many cultures in the world and that each culture has its own values, beliefs, and practices that have been developed over time in a particular context, either historically, politically, or socially, and that none of the cultures are necessarily wrong or right. The modern world has widely embraced the concept of cultural relativism, with words such as tolerance and

acceptance taking on a new meaning. In sociology, the concept is practiced to overcome the problem of cultural bias that has plagued research. It has also greatly influenced social sciences such as anthropology. It is linked to but always distinguished from moral relativism, a concept that views morality as relative to a given standard. Cultural relativist ideas encourage us to withhold judgement before coming to any ethical or moral conclusions about a particular cultural belief or action. It recognizes that by originating from a different culture, we will automatically be at least partially biased towards other cultural beliefs and behaviors—for example, they may appear outwardly strange. Instead, cultural relativism encourages us to recognize the inherent value of each culture and understand that different cultures have emerged as responses to different environmental and historical conditions.

What does morals mean? A person’s idea of morals tends to be shaped by their surrounding environment (and sometimes their belief system). Moral values shape a person’s ideas about right and wrong. They often provide the guiding ideas behind ethical systems. That’s where it gets tricky … morals are the basis for ethics. A moral person wants to do the right thing, and a moral impulse usually means best intentions.

What does ethics mean? Ethics are distinct from morals in that they’re much more practical. An ethical code doesn’t have to be moral. It’s just a set of rules for people to follow. Several professional organizations (like the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association) have created specific ethical codes for their respective fields. In other words, an ethical code has nothing to do with cosmic righteousness or a set of beliefs. It’s a set of rules that are drafted by trade groups to ensure members stay out of trouble and act in a way that brings credit to the profession.

Ethics aren’t always moral … and vice versa It’s important to know that what’s ethical isn’t always what’s moral, and vice versa. Omerta, for example, is a code of silence that developed among members of the Mafia. It was used to protect criminals from the police. This follows the rules of ethically-correct behavior for the organization, but it can also be viewed as wrong from a moral standpoint.

A moral action can also be unethical. A lawyer who tells the court that his client is guilty may be acting out of a moral desire to see justice done, but this is deeply unethical because it violates the attorney-client privilege. morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors. A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior

Cultural Relativism Cultural Relativism: All Truth Is Local Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.” Cultural relativism is a widely held position in the modern world. Words like “pluralism,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” have taken on new meanings, as the boundaries of “culture” have expanded. The loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost anything to be justified on the grounds of “relativism.” The umbrella of “relativism” includes a fairly wide range of ideas, all of which introduce instability and uncertainty into areas that were previously considered settled.

Stepping up to the edge of a cliff gives you a good perspective of the terrain below. Taking one step too far, as cultural relativism does, is simply a disaster. Obviously, perspective is important to our understanding of history, psychology, and politics. Cultural perspective can help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong by a particular culture. For example, an ancient society might have considered dyeing one’s hair green to be a punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if not oppressive. Yet, good cultural perspective might tell us more. If we were to find out that green hair was a sign of a prostitute, we would understand that it wasn’t the hair color itself, but the prostitution that was truly considered “wrong.” However, the problem with moving from cultural perspective to cultural relativism is the erosion of reason that it causes. Rather than simply saying, “we need to understand the morals of other cultures,” it says, “we cannot judge the morals of other cultures,” regardless of the reasons for their actions. There is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. Holding to strict cultural relativism, it is not possible to say that human sacrifice is “wrong,” or that respect for the elderly is “right.” After all, those are products of the culture. This takes any talk of morality right over the cliff, and into meaningless gibberish. Cultural relativism wrongly claims that each culture has its own distinct but equally valid mode of perception, thought, and choice. Cultural relativism, the opposite of the idea that moral truth is universal and objective, contends there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. There is only right and wrong as specified by the moral code of each society.

Cultural Relativism: Absolutely Impossible The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A society that embraces the notion that there is no

ultimate “right” or “wrong” loses the ability to make any judgments at all. The way in which relativism, including cultural relativism, has permeated modern society is demonstrated in the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this contradiction. “Tolerance” has mutated to imply unconditional support and agreement for all opinions or lifestyles. However, those who choose to be “intolerant” are not to be supported or agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an “ultimate good” in and of itself, which is contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the same way, heinous crimes such as rape and murder demand a moral judgment -- but strict cultural relativism cannot say that such things are always wrong. Relativism in general breaks down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The basic premise is that “truth is relative.” If every truth statement is valid, then the statement “some truths are absolute” must be valid. The statement “there are no absolute truths” is accurate, according to relativism -- but it is an absolute truth itself. These contradict the very concept of relativism, meaning that absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible.

Cultural Relativism: Crumbling Away In practice, cultural relativism cannot overcome the boundaries of logic, nor can it override the sense of morality inherent to mankind. We instinctively know that some things are wrong, so cultural relativists attempt to tweak their philosophy to fit that need. Declaring certain actions “mostly” wrong, or “mostly” right is nothing more than making up the rules as one goes. Saying that some morals are “better,” even if they aren’t “the best,” still implies some ultimate standard that’s being used to make that judgment. How do you know which cloud is higher unless you know which way “up” is? To firmly state that anything at all is always wrong is

to reject relativism itself. In the end, those who insist on clinging to cultural relativism must jettison logic, because there isn’t room for both. It is literally impossible for a person to rationally believe that there are no moral absolutes, or at least to live out that belief in any meaningful way. Since this philosophy is nonsensical, there must be some fundamental absolutes of right and wrong, regardless of the opinions of any given society. Since there are disagreements among different cultures, we cannot assume that these truths are developed by one particular group of people. In fact, the only logical place for these concepts to originate from is something more universal, or at least more fundamental, than culture. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-cultural-relativism.html https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural-relativism.htm

Moral character Moral character or character is an evaluation of a particular individual's durable moral qualities. The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another — although on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a disposition to express behavior in consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations."

Moral character is what dictates an individual 's decision making and affects their experiences throughout their life. A person 's morals can be based off one 's upbringing and environmental factors. Virtue ethics is a philosophical view that greatly supports this claim that the choices a person makes and their actions follow those choices, and display their moral character. This is more likely to be true than Kantianism, because this type of ethical view is based off Immanuel Kant, a philosophical thinker whose emphasizes that his writings and beliefs influence the choices people make. However, people do what is

morally acceptable in society, but more importantly what they believe is right. Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned. The person takes pleasure in, or is not, at any rate, disinclined toward, doing what he thinks. Virtue ethics can be perceived as our physiological morals. Due to the fact that when making decisions and executing them, we begin to determine the consequences, positive and negative outcomes or what may occur in the long run. This action is something people encounter everyday. Kantian ethics is concerned with doing the right thing. This concept is defined as those actions people take in which they treat people as they would see fit in themselves, and not a means to some personal end. Meaning, one should not help someone because it makes you feel good, but because it is the right thing to do, it’s our duty as human beings. Virtue ethics on the other hand, does not focus exclusively on actions, but on the character of the individual. https://www.123helpme.com/moral-character-of-virtue-ethics-preview.asp?id=509211...