What is the definition of cultural relativism? Does the concept of cultural relativism promote international understanding, or does it hinder attempts to have international agreements on acceptable social behavior, such as human rights? According to Nancy Bonvillain (2010), the definition of cultural relativism is an approach in anthropology that stresses the importance of analyzing cultures in that culture’s own terms rather than in terms of the culture of the anthropologist. This does not mean, however, that all cultural behavior must be condoned. According to this article on the website by Got Question (2002-2012), “cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context”.
Shallow ecology has a shallow outlook on the environment and believes that we should only do something if it is for our interests, for example, we should save ecosystems but only if they are of value to us. The view is completely self-centred. It suggests an anthropocentric approach to ecology and sees environmental issues in terms of human-centred reforms rather than any deep change in relationships between humans and the Earth. The term 'light green' has been applied to the beliefs of so-called shallow ecologists. Shallow ecologists believe that different aspects of the natural world are interconnected, so the way that we treat nature should take this into account.
Terrorism- a nationalist response to the effects of globalization Globalization of economy politics and social issues has made people and groups more insecure and uncertain. One main consecuence of that insecurity is to look for a personal identity and to search for a cultural identity. Globalization is the phenomenon that explains growth to a global or world wide scale(wordnetweb.priceton.edu). Nationalism is the loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national conciousness (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism). 1.
It's very important for us to take care of our own, without helping those who are in need here, we are doing a disservice to our own people. I would argue that our society would have the ability to do both. We don't need to be the policemen of all of the world's problems, but we do need to make sure we are making the world a better place. All politicians campaign on the notion that we are using our military, power, and wealth to create a better place for all and what better way to let this be shown then by helping those who are less fortunate in foreign countries. I feel our government and fellow citizens can do much more to help.
As Brooks mention in his essay, the segmentation of the society divide the country. The pursuit of diversity strengthens of America is in unity, as a nation there is a need to come together as a people combine talents and powers towards accomplishing a common goal. Because of diversity, one would be able to add to their development by learning from other cultures. These diverse vantage works to our advantage when we encounter new problems in different situations. Rather than viewing the world through a single focus lens one is to view the world from another perspective.
Martha Nussbaum claims that her Capabilities Approach is universally applicable. Some would argue this is a form of value-imperialism. The term value imperialism refers to the mass spread of values/traditions or a set of norms that all humans should follow because it is the right thing to do according to those people. The problem is that this is usually the view of the most powerful people of a society, who have more access to political expression. Even though some humans might be similar, everyone in the world is different, thus making our beliefs and values different as well.
He means that if the venture needs you to be anyone else but yourself, it will lead to no good. This reveals to me that Thoreau believes strongly in the individual, being yourself, and seeking your own path. This quote is also applicable to modern life because many ventures nowadays require you to conform for some purpose. The second aphorism I remembered is “Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplicity, simplicity.” Thoreau means that our focus and attention to detail now in society and culture do nothing but to waste our lives away needlessly. He believes simplicity is the better choice.
Government, which takes the sustainable development of its people into consideration, should assume responsibility for preserving publicly owned wilderness areas, which, despite having no direct bearing on human lives, is so unique and valuable that no man-made things can substitute. . In the first place, the wilderness areas bespoke real freedom, which has already lost its original meaning in today’s enormous man-made environment. It can be argued that our human beings don’t suffer from the lack of freedom, which can even be find expression in The Declaration of Independence. However, if the freedom is measured by the ability to do whatever one wants, most of us have not so much freedom as supposed.
Cultural Relativism, a term used to describe individual’s beliefs that should be accepted in one’s cultural but also can be denied in society. In James Rachels’ essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, she brings up varies examples that contradicts with one society’s beliefs to another society. She uses this term and analyzes it different situations proving that it can be controversial at times since no one should have the same thinking process as another person. For example, if you were to take to civilizations of the past and tell them to trade beliefs. They would find it outrages since it would be unorthodox to their teachings.
Snyder compares the relationship between nature and human to that of the post-revolutionary relationship between Britain and the US; “Similarly… the natural world will rebel against human beings if nonhuman species and the land itself are denied respect” (Kinsley 218). A relationship with the land that someone’s from and lives on is also a necessary aspect of forming a relationship with the natural world. Instead of naming and dividing land for economic and political reasons, the natural shape and integrity of the land should be respected and adhered to. Asserting what Snyder calls ones’ “bioregional citizenship”, instead of their citizenships or nationality, is a step towards a stronger and sustainable relationship with the earth. Along with forming a relationship with the land, Snyder emphasizes viewing eating as a sacred exchange of energy , where an interconnectedness is created between all living and non living things on earth.