Ethical relativism is supported due to the narrowing view of ethnocentrism, which is causing great “prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism” (Pojman, 25). Society is moving away from their ethnocentric view of the world, which allows for a more diverse cultural of right and wrong. Moral positions are based on what their society sees as ideal norms. The first of two theses is cultural relativism, “what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society”(Pojman, 26), meaning that there is no universal morals, which are accepted by all societies. In some cultures it might be morally acceptable to value slavery, genocide, or female circumcision.
Due to human nature, we cannot achieve a spirit of oneness, because other factors such as social class, appearance, politics, and religion will still cause discrimination between people. It’s in our nature to separate and classify things, including the people around us, into groups sometimes without even realizing it. ‘Racialization’ which Olson defines as: “the tendency to think of another people as not just culturally different, but genetically different” (Olson 125). We have historical evidence showing that people have been discriminating for these same reasons, even before things were
The author of this paper is strongly against the option to choose the gender of their child. In today’s society there is an option to pick the gender of an unborn child. Today’s technology has become advanced enough to allow parents to pick the gender of their children. Through complex procedures and processes one can produce a “preferable” gender of an embryo. Is this ethical?
They believe that it could lead to false assumptions about cultural differences. In turn, ethnocentrism can distort communication between the human populations. In ethnocentric societies, they believe that they are superior amongst the rest of the world. They show an unnecessary amount of pride of their culture and contempt of outsiders. Ethnocentric societies can get too extreme and start harassing other societies that they feel is inferior to them.
Would they want to see the disrespect that humans often give one another based on a race or culture? Would they agree with our disregard for other living things, with our decisions to get abortions because we cannot live up to our mistakes? Would they be proud with the lazy people who just live life on the government’s welfare? My answer to all these question is negative. The first thing that I feel would disappoint these highly advanced creatures would be our neglect to the plant.
People often reject what is different very quickly. We need to work together for the common goos in society and the world. 2. What is ethnocentrism? In what ways can ethnocentrism be detrimental to a society?
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of labelling theory as an explanation of deviant behaviour. (40 marks) Labelling theorists such as Becker and Lemert argue that because of the diversity of different values in society, there can never be a universally agreed definition of what contributes ‘normal’ or ‘deviant’ behaviour. What is deviant for one person may not be deviant for another. An example of this would be consumption of alcohol, as it is legal in the West but against the law in Saudi Arabia due to their religious beliefs. Deviance, therefore is a mater of interpretation requiring not one but two activities: group or individual must act in a particular fashion and another group or individual with different values and more power label the initial activity as deviant.
But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people. Hume doesn’t explicitly do this, but we can distinguish two different ways of understanding this idea: i) as a nonnormative thesis of political sociology, and ii) as a normative thesis of political philosophy. According to i), just as it is a fact of political sociology that people tend to get very angry whenever they believe that their rights have been violated, it is also a fact that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the duty to obey government derives from consent. Hume’s reply is that this is not a fact at all; it is demonstrably false. “…We find everywhere princes who claim their subjects as their property and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession.
Humans individually may also disagree over what is right and wrong : while one person may say gossiping is an awful thing that should be avoided another person may think that so long that the person you are gossiping about doesn’t hear or find out, it’s okay. So what controls what we personally believe is right or wrong? Is it our countries laws, our society’s beliefs or our family’s upbringing? Or does it go deeper than that: it is our natural instinct or something built up by religion? And if it is religion how come those from different religions have different opinions?
But when used to attack another culture, ethnocentrism is quite disruptive and extremely biased. To be ethno centric is to be centered or more approving of one’s own ethnic background than any other. It is functional in primitive society as it warns one against anything different or 'the other'. The principle Cultural relativism is that an individual human's beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture. Cultural relativism leads to ethno centric behavior.