Cultural Relativism Essay Example

Question 2: Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism Theory

Cultural relativism is defined as the principle concerning the values, beliefs as well as practices of a particular culture from the standing point of the given culture itself. This term found its way in the early 2oth century through Franz Boas works. Consequently, cultural relativism has gained a lot of influence from social sciences subjects like sociology and anthropology. For instance, Sociology applies cultural relativism in its practices to avert cultural bias in research in addition to circumventing making the judgment of other cultures through the viewpoint of an individual's culture. Therefore, it is under such circumstances that cultural relativism has been regarded as an attempt to evade ethnocentrism. Nonetheless, cultural relativism has both its advantages and disadvantages. Just like people undergo change cultures also change since humanity keeps on revolutionizing adapting and developing. Therefore, the implementation of culture means that it can trigger evolution and adjust based on the ethical definition of what is "right" and "wrong," which is likely to change as individuals change. Subsequently, cultural relativism has the power to eliminate the rigidity is contained in the society in connection with reasoning, behaviors, and ethics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Advantages of Cultural Relativism

It is a system that enhances corporation: humanity is powerful due to the disparity in the manner in which people have been created. People have diverse perceptions regarding their experiences, upbringing as well as individual thinking. By appreciating the differences among people, it develops mutual support thus a stronger society. The difference in the success definition enables people to pursue stronger relations with one another, which increase their possibility to accomplish more since there are no confines to stop them from progressing.

It builds a society where there is a possibility for impartiality: It traditionally known that individuals rise by climbing on other people, and it is a socially acceptable manner of fashioning discernment. It is currently seen through the wage gap faced by women, violence as a result of political oppression and the educational chances that the marginal people experience. Cultural relativism offers people the opportunity to describe their moral code without defining that of others. All people are distinct in this kind of society; thus it is through this distinction that creates fairness because each can set their description for achievements.

It allows people to pursue genuine interests: In the present world, individuals are focused on specific career opportunities basing on their surroundings. When one has no resources to school until they reach the college level, they can go for a vocational career or opt for entrepreneurship instead of jobs that call for academic certifications like degrees. Also, when one cannot purchase a house, they can rent an apartment. Therefore, cultural relativism allows people to pursue their interests with no restrictions whatsoever. Cultural relativism will enable people to set definitions according to what they possess and not what they are not able to have. When executed in the right manner, everyone is assured of getting their focus on their strengths and not weaknesses.

A system of cultural relativism inspires respects: People originate from unlike cultures and have different ideas. As a result, different people have different definitions of success. This type of system encourages individualistic definition instead collective descriptions. Subsequently, the society is likely to evolve since there is a natural respect level that is created during this process. All people are unsurprisingly accorded with the opportunity to lead their lives in their special perception, which also allow them to learn from their past in a manner that best works for them.

Cultural relativism plays a significant role in preserving human culture: Humanity comprise a set of ideas, thoughts, practices, and traditions. In most cases, humanity is placed aside to allow for a group of standards to prevail. For instance native as well as first nations communities from Northern America was doing this through the signing of treaties; thus it enabled them to preserve some lands. Nevertheless, it in return confined their rights as they became subjects' governmental administrators something that forced them to exchange some of their customs. According to cultural relativism, this kind of exchange could not have happened at all.

Disadvantages of Cultural Relativism

It fashions a system that is fuelled by personal bias: Each society has their special natural preference depending on the manner in which their humanity is run. Individuals tend to prefer staying with people of a similar feeling, and understanding, therefore, they will look for means to exclude themselves from communities, neighborhoods and social groups that share similar perceptions. In this context, people will tend to follow their code at the costs of others. According to the above discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of cultural relativism, in my opinion, cultural relativism theory is good because it encourages a peaceful coexistence among people in the society.

Section B

Question 1: Why abortion is considered a moral issue?

Abortion is considered a moral issue because it is has a lot of controversies surrounding its moral-religious as well as legal status. Consequently, the issue of abortion is centered on the question of personhood. Almost all people believe that individuals have a special moral position. As a result, abortion is an interesting philosophical matter since it has two sides that seem such inevitable stands. Taking away someone's life and barring extreme circumstances is regarded as a serious sin. Pro-life supporters' claims that the same is true about abortion since fetuses are also humans. Contrary, pro-choices' argue that fetuses are humans not unless they attain a particular development period, such as at birth or some later development stage. Abortion is considered a moral issue because there is no one to exactly tell when human personhood begins, women rights over their body as well as the rights of the fetus. Indeed no one can justify their stand for the action taken both for and against abortion.

According to Thomson, the scholar argued that despite the fact that the fetus has the right to life it has no power to dictate on how to utilize the pregnant woman's body. Consequently, since a fetus is a person and persons are entitled to live it has a right to life. Nonetheless, despite the fetus having the right to life, it is the woman who has the right to decide on what happens in and over their body; the fetus is not supposed to be aborted since abortion is not allowed. Thomson recommends that there are times when abortion is morally acceptable such as in circumstances where it is only abortion that is likely to save the life of the mother as well as when the pregnancy is as a result of rape. According to Thomson since aborting the fetus is direct murdering of an innocent individual it is equivalent to murder because the fetus being aborted stand innocent in this context.

On the other hand, Marquis considers abortion as an ethical act equivalent to killing an adult human being. According to this scholar, aborting a fetus that is an exceptional case is a grave moral wrong. Marquis notes that despite anti-abortionist being convinced by many features exemplified by the fetus similar to those of an adult person, pro-choices argue that the fetus does not comprise all features that are taken to be inclusive in the moral society. Consequently, either side strives to justify their argument in consideration of the principle which explains wrongness killing to render a favorable judgment to suit their view regarding abortion. About this information, Marquis suggests that none of the principles is justifying. The anti-abortionist principle is quite broad while that of the pro-choices' extremely narrow.

As a result, Marquis acclaims adopting a novel strategy. The initial strategy is to explain the reason as to why killing an adult human being is ordinarily immoral, and then compare it to abortion. Once an explanation is reached, it will help to justify why abortion is apparently immoral. According to Marquis, the wrong aspect of killing is because it takes away from the victim something pressures. Indeed, it searches the victim everything that they could have treasured in future had not been taken away prematurely. Therefore, killing is unacceptable because it snatches one the value to achieve their future goals as well as other more and more experiences. Marquis in his explanation about the wrongness of killing notes that it justify peoples' belief about killing as a dangerous crime since it deprives the victim a lot of value. Marquis links this process to abortion because abortion shortens the fetus value. The fetus is characteristically supposed to enjoy the forthcoming value of life. Similarly, just like the adult's life when ended prematurely fail to enjoy future value, the fetus is also deprived its future, which is a grave crime.

In my opinion, by comparing the argument of these two scholars about abortion Marquis is likelier to the right in her arguments because she attempts to justify her opinion. In her argument, she claims that in both cases whether killing an adult human being or the fetus it deprives both victims a future enjoyment value. Thomson in her claims fails to justify her claims regarding abortion and only states that since a fetus is a person aborting it is direct killing.