Normative Cultural Relativism and Its Challenges a particular society, culture or community. Thus, it can be simplified to a simpler statement that normative relativism “tells us how we should act.” Furthermore, this view is generally associated with arguments that oppose moral universalism and "relativists' insistence that we should refrain from making moral judgments about the beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than ours. In this essay, I will define relativism in general, before focusing on normative cultural relativism, its merits as proposed and the opposing view expressed by Xiaorong Li, before discussing my position based on the merits of both arguments . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In order to successfully discuss normative cultural relativism, one must discuss relativism in general, cultural relativism in particular. As such, relativism is generally accepted, although it is widely used to describe equally broad concepts, describing views according to which right and wrong, a person's justification (and the process of justification) are the result of different experiences and are therefore limited to those who share similar experiences. As such, one's understanding of others' views is only relevant to the extent that one applies the required "framework" and, therefore, views cannot be analyzed and understood independently of the circumstances, experience and point of view, provided by said experience, which gave birth. self-reported their opinions (Baghramian and Carter, 2018). This understanding of relativism explains why this argument, specifically cultural relativism, is both controversial and relatively popular in our current globalized and intertwined world. Proponents of cultural relativism tout it as a way to defend tolerance and intercultural understanding. Conversely, opponents of this view target its supposed inconsistency and lack of critical intellectual permissiveness (Baghramian and Carter, 2018). Defining Normative Cultural Relativism Moral, or normative, cultural relativism states that the standards that people follow in defining their moral/ethical rights and wrongs are best understood by applying their experience, cultural context, and the environment in which they take shape. It goes further than cultural relativism in that, as a normative theory, it considers interference and arguments made by individuals outside the community to be erroneous. According to Westacott (2019), this was initially proposed as a way to oppose the "unconscious ethnocentrism that can lead social scientists to misunderstand the phenomena they observe." Thus, although ritual suffering may seem like punishment with no purpose other than deterrence, it might actually be seen as serving a different purpose by these communities. Furthermore, cultural relativists would argue that an act that is morally right, or expected, in one culture might simultaneously mean, or be taken to mean, something completely different in another culture. As such, we cannotapply one’s own culture to understand these acts because of their “different situational meanings.” Thus, since the meaning of each act differs, depending on the variables discussed previously, it is impossible for two distinct communities/societies to be in conflict (Westacott, 2019). Exploring Xiaorong's critique of normative cultural relativism, Xiaorong Li argues that recognizing the importance of culture in the formation of an individual's/community's moral values and ethical principles does not compromise the existence of moral values and of universal ethical principles (2007). Xiaorong notes the universalist vision of human rights prohibits certain customs and traditions, such as honor killings, female circumcision, and self-flagellation, and that this vision is unrealistic in the extent to which their universal implementation would go essentially against these same views. Furthermore, said author notes that these universalist visions developed within certain cultural traditions (i.e. Western traditions moved away from still practiced customs that would be antithetical to current Western norms), distinct cultures of those which still perpetuate these customs and which have evolved separately. Thus, because current human rights principles protect freedom of expression and thought, they should allow for the cultural diversity and pluralism that have become prevalent in some parts of the world, because the cultural factor that shapes values and a person's principles cannot be ignored when attempting to participate in serious activities. ethical discussions (Xiaorong, 2007). Since an individual's understanding of cultural relativism and universalism is shaped by their understanding of the concepts of culture, tradition, and community, one must first clearly define these terms and concepts in order to evaluate this understanding. As such, Xiaorong (2007) argues in favor of a “minimalist and consensual vision” of culture. This view considers culture to be a form of informal knowledge that is inherited and forms the traditions that one learns and practices through socialization within a distinct community. This vision combines the consensual features of what Xiaorong considers to be the “classical” and “contemporary” schools; culture is not as definitively linked and homogeneous as the classics claim, but neither is it as easily influenced, heterogeneous and porous as the proponents of the contemporary school postulate. As such, the view of culture espoused by Xiaorong maintains a definitive body that is counterintuitive to the contemporary school's view, as their argument that culture is a "borderless, changing body of knowledge and divided internally would be too indefinite and amorphous to be a body of knowledge without borders, changing and divided internally. “body” at all, in addition to adding to the culture a historical element which is absent from the contemporary school (Xiaorong, 2007). In addition to defining culture differently, Xiaorong (2007) posits the existence of "paradoxes of culture", three of which are clearly defined: culture can be both unique but allow for overlap and compatibility with other cultures , culture can be both uniform while internally it can allow for individualization within a community. Finally, culture can have its own history and origin while allowing self-criticism (impossible in the traditional normative cultural relativist view) leading to possible transformation and integration of foreign cultural elements. Normative cultural relativists argue that the origin and historyindependent of one culture make it impossible for cross-cultural moral principles to exist. While traditional normative cultural relativists overemphasize cultural uniqueness and our inability to compare different cultures, traditional universalists often deny its existence. Thus, uniqueness of knowledge requires that there be no copying elsewhere, but overlap of knowledge and traditions can occur while retaining said uniqueness and can be proportionate. Likewise, cultural unity is not a necessary condition within a community for it to exist despite individual differences in interpretation and action, because adversity (especially external) can produce the type of unity which is proof of the existence of this community despite the fluidity of an individual's cultural relations. identity (Xiaorong, 2007). This, according to Xiaorong, allows for cross-cultural interactions because an internally divided group can find common ground with external actors. Finally, Xiaorong's (2007) third paradox (recognizing historical particularity while allowing for transformation) is inconsistent with the idea that changes necessarily imply that culture has an enduring reality and is ephemeral/illusory. By defining culture in these terms, the author forms two concepts that combine to form our culture: cultural communities and cultural traditions. A cultural community is defined as a community that shares an identity that allows for the social transmission and debate of identifiable knowledge while allowing for fluidity, comparison, and individuality. Likewise, cultural traditions are formed by the paradoxes mentioned above. Thus, tradition as understood by Xiaorong (2007) is the complex set of rules, customs, symbols, practices and more that clash and compete leading to changes despite the inherited set of beliefs and of shared experiences of this community. Through this long discussion on what constitutes culture, tradition and community, Xiaorong (2007) attempts to understand the role of culture in establishing ethical standards, how it shapes it and if/how it competes with others. other actors when it justifies actions and moral judgments. He argues that one's interpretation of culture has a dual role in shaping one's views: simultaneously capable of explaining different positions due to internal debates/conflicts arising from the evolution of culture over time, and that culture is shaped and influenced by external factors associated with one's own culture. and those of others outside the cultural community with which one identifies. This understanding leads him to the conclusion that culture cannot be the cause of an individual's moral decisions because of the aforementioned roles it plays in shaping an individual. Indeed, the constituent elements of culture (which were used interchangeably with culture itself by Xiaorong), cultural tradition and community, do not constitute the cause of an individual's moral worth, because the Individuals sharing these two (tradition and community) are more deeply influenced by their individual experiences rather than by either of two components of culture. Therefore, although two individuals may have been raised under a similar traditional interpretation of Islamic law, their personal views on the central tenets of their shared tradition may differ when it comes to the amputation of thieves or marriage. of minors due to other more important motivations (greed, survival instinct, recklessness, altruism,.. 151-172.

Essay / Normative Cultural Relativism and Its Challenges a particular society, culture or community. Thus, it can be simplified to a simpler statement that normative relativism “tells us how we should act.” Furthermore, this view is generally associated with arguments that oppose moral universalism and "relativists' insistence that we should refrain from making moral judgments about the beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than ours. In this essay, I will define relativism in general, before focusing on normative cultural relativism, its merits as proposed and the opposing view expressed by Xiaorong Li, before discussing my position based on the merits of both arguments . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In order to successfully discuss normative cultural relativism, one must discuss relativism in general, cultural relativism in particular. As such, relativism is generally accepted, although it is widely used to describe equally broad concepts, describing views according to which right and wrong, a person's justification (and the process of justification) are the result of different experiences and are therefore limited to those who share similar experiences. As such, one's understanding of others' views is only relevant to the extent that one applies the required "framework" and, therefore, views cannot be analyzed and understood independently of the circumstances, experience and point of view, provided by said experience, which gave birth. self-reported their opinions (Baghramian and Carter, 2018). This understanding of relativism explains why this argument, specifically cultural relativism, is both controversial and relatively popular in our current globalized and intertwined world. Proponents of cultural relativism tout it as a way to defend tolerance and intercultural understanding. Conversely, opponents of this view target its supposed inconsistency and lack of critical intellectual permissiveness (Baghramian and Carter, 2018). Defining Normative Cultural Relativism Moral, or normative, cultural relativism states that the standards that people follow in defining their moral/ethical rights and wrongs are best understood by applying their experience, cultural context, and the environment in which they take shape. It goes further than cultural relativism in that, as a normative theory, it considers interference and arguments made by individuals outside the community to be erroneous. According to Westacott (2019), this was initially proposed as a way to oppose the "unconscious ethnocentrism that can lead social scientists to misunderstand the phenomena they observe." Thus, although ritual suffering may seem like punishment with no purpose other than deterrence, it might actually be seen as serving a different purpose by these communities. Furthermore, cultural relativists would argue that an act that is morally right, or expected, in one culture might simultaneously mean, or be taken to mean, something completely different in another culture. As such, we cannotapply one’s own culture to understand these acts because of their “different situational meanings.” Thus, since the meaning of each act differs, depending on the variables discussed previously, it is impossible for two distinct communities/societies to be in conflict (Westacott, 2019). Exploring Xiaorong's critique of normative cultural relativism, Xiaorong Li argues that recognizing the importance of culture in the formation of an individual's/community's moral values and ethical principles does not compromise the existence of moral values and of universal ethical principles (2007). Xiaorong notes the universalist vision of human rights prohibits certain customs and traditions, such as honor killings, female circumcision, and self-flagellation, and that this vision is unrealistic in the extent to which their universal implementation would go essentially against these same views. Furthermore, said author notes that these universalist visions developed within certain cultural traditions (i.e. Western traditions moved away from still practiced customs that would be antithetical to current Western norms), distinct cultures of those which still perpetuate these customs and which have evolved separately. Thus, because current human rights principles protect freedom of expression and thought, they should allow for the cultural diversity and pluralism that have become prevalent in some parts of the world, because the cultural factor that shapes values and a person's principles cannot be ignored when attempting to participate in serious activities. ethical discussions (Xiaorong, 2007). Since an individual's understanding of cultural relativism and universalism is shaped by their understanding of the concepts of culture, tradition, and community, one must first clearly define these terms and concepts in order to evaluate this understanding. As such, Xiaorong (2007) argues in favor of a “minimalist and consensual vision” of culture. This view considers culture to be a form of informal knowledge that is inherited and forms the traditions that one learns and practices through socialization within a distinct community. This vision combines the consensual features of what Xiaorong considers to be the “classical” and “contemporary” schools; culture is not as definitively linked and homogeneous as the classics claim, but neither is it as easily influenced, heterogeneous and porous as the proponents of the contemporary school postulate. As such, the view of culture espoused by Xiaorong maintains a definitive body that is counterintuitive to the contemporary school's view, as their argument that culture is a "borderless, changing body of knowledge and divided internally would be too indefinite and amorphous to be a body of knowledge without borders, changing and divided internally. “body” at all, in addition to adding to the culture a historical element which is absent from the contemporary school (Xiaorong, 2007). In addition to defining culture differently, Xiaorong (2007) posits the existence of "paradoxes of culture", three of which are clearly defined: culture can be both unique but allow for overlap and compatibility with other cultures , culture can be both uniform while internally it can allow for individualization within a community. Finally, culture can have its own history and origin while allowing self-criticism (impossible in the traditional normative cultural relativist view) leading to possible transformation and integration of foreign cultural elements. Normative cultural relativists argue that the origin and historyindependent of one culture make it impossible for cross-cultural moral principles to exist. While traditional normative cultural relativists overemphasize cultural uniqueness and our inability to compare different cultures, traditional universalists often deny its existence. Thus, uniqueness of knowledge requires that there be no copying elsewhere, but overlap of knowledge and traditions can occur while retaining said uniqueness and can be proportionate. Likewise, cultural unity is not a necessary condition within a community for it to exist despite individual differences in interpretation and action, because adversity (especially external) can produce the type of unity which is proof of the existence of this community despite the fluidity of an individual's cultural relations. identity (Xiaorong, 2007). This, according to Xiaorong, allows for cross-cultural interactions because an internally divided group can find common ground with external actors. Finally, Xiaorong's (2007) third paradox (recognizing historical particularity while allowing for transformation) is inconsistent with the idea that changes necessarily imply that culture has an enduring reality and is ephemeral/illusory. By defining culture in these terms, the author forms two concepts that combine to form our culture: cultural communities and cultural traditions. A cultural community is defined as a community that shares an identity that allows for the social transmission and debate of identifiable knowledge while allowing for fluidity, comparison, and individuality. Likewise, cultural traditions are formed by the paradoxes mentioned above. Thus, tradition as understood by Xiaorong (2007) is the complex set of rules, customs, symbols, practices and more that clash and compete leading to changes despite the inherited set of beliefs and of shared experiences of this community. Through this long discussion on what constitutes culture, tradition and community, Xiaorong (2007) attempts to understand the role of culture in establishing ethical standards, how it shapes it and if/how it competes with others. other actors when it justifies actions and moral judgments. He argues that one's interpretation of culture has a dual role in shaping one's views: simultaneously capable of explaining different positions due to internal debates/conflicts arising from the evolution of culture over time, and that culture is shaped and influenced by external factors associated with one's own culture. and those of others outside the cultural community with which one identifies. This understanding leads him to the conclusion that culture cannot be the cause of an individual's moral decisions because of the aforementioned roles it plays in shaping an individual. Indeed, the constituent elements of culture (which were used interchangeably with culture itself by Xiaorong), cultural tradition and community, do not constitute the cause of an individual's moral worth, because the Individuals sharing these two (tradition and community) are more deeply influenced by their individual experiences rather than by either of two components of culture. Therefore, although two individuals may have been raised under a similar traditional interpretation of Islamic law, their personal views on the central tenets of their shared tradition may differ when it comes to the amputation of thieves or marriage. of minors due to other more important motivations (greed, survival instinct, recklessness, altruism,.. 151-172.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch