Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual. The Enlightenment was also based on logic and humaneness was coming in to the picture. First of all, Baccaria’s saw torture as inadequate criminal justice procedures, since torture was adopted as a common technique to determine whether an individual was guilty or innocent through use of pain. This in Baccaria’s eyes is deemed as useless. Since the tortured party can be proven guilty or innocent based on their pain tolerance, if an individual who has committed a crime and is being tortured however their pain tolerance is very high and they are able to take the pain they may be judged as innocent, however if and individual is innocent or guilty has a low pain tolerance and is not able to cope with the pain and confesses then it no longer matters whether he committed the crime or not, thus making
Adler theorized that personality was motivated by the influence of society and fighting for triumph. Adler theorized that individual personality grows based on outside factors such as defeat, indemnification, and exaggeration. He believed personality to be a existent with no conflicts from ego, whereas Freud believed the unconscious is based within an individual based on internal conflicts. Jung disagreed with Freud and as a resulted went his own way where he established analytical psychology. “He believed individuals were motivated by not only repressed experiences but also certain emotionally toned experiences inherited from our ancestors” (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 98).
In doing this, I hope to provide an evaluation of the weaknesses in the relativist argument, in addition to an exploration of an alternative account of why the IBR has failed to integrate into certain non-Western societies that does not depend on an assertion (radical or non-radical) of relative cultural values. Cultural relativism is the view which advocates for ethical relativism on grounds of cultural differences. Kajit John Bagu defines it as “[t]he notion that a practice, value, norm and law of a society should be understood and appraised by people outside of that society only in that society's terms and standards”1. Human rights, in contrast, are defined within the articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states in its preamble that it is a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations (...) secur[ing] their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”. These two notions, at their respective extremes (extremes herein referred to as radical cultural relativism and radical universalism2), are at odds with one another.
A communitarian view on society states that each individual is responsible for his status inside a given community; that such a community is equally responsible for the status of its individuals. It states that any law or practice should be based on a purely democratic and not a simple majoritarian perspective. Polities should be determined to foster participation and deliberation, not to dictate policies but rather mandate a collective perspective. Indeed all this must be done, and more, in an effort to regulate a healthy society in which all individuals are equal in the community and that contribute equally back to the community. However, how can a society be democratic without being majoritarian?
Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
National culture is the result that response of most suitable for nation's environment. Cultural relativism refuses a Cultural absolutism that some country's culture is superior to other cultures. All cultures are the embodiment of a society's experience and knowledge which is obtained by corresponding with attributes environment. Also it has a value and the reason for the existence of its own. In the age of globalization, it helps us to understand what difference culture in reducing culture's absolute superiority.
Think carefully about each of the questions and submit your responses along with the reasons you have adopted that value. Additionally, describe several of your moral values that are not addressed in these questions. 1.Do we have a moral responsibility toward less fortunate people? We only have a moral responsibility to be an opportunity for those less fortunate than us. Individuals, especially in contemporary society, are far less self-sufficient and expect things to be done for them rather than go out and take those opportunities themselves.
Cultural Relativism The theory of cultural relativism suggests that there is no absolute right or wrong. Instead, the morals, beliefs and behaviours that vary throughout different cultures must be taken into consideration. This idea is based on the principle that no one culture can define the basics of living for any or all other cultures. People frequently pass judgment about others based on their own cultural standards, this can result in discrimination, prejudice, hurt and/or injury and is the reason why cultural relativism should be avoided at all costs. Franz Boas an early 20th century scientist, introduced the notion of cultural relativism when, in his early years of work, he realised that bias, prejudice and bigotry was becoming a pandemic amongst many anthropologists.
The sense of belonging is only attained by connecting ourselves to people who are similar. We can't gain a sense of belonging by being different. We want to 'fit in' because as a society not belonging is considered a negative thing. And it is not only me that thinks so. When studying belonging I was given Peter Skrzynecki's Immigrant Chronicles and told to select two of them for an 'in depth analysis' into how they relate to the topic, I chose Migrant Hostel, and St. Patrick's College.
Tolerance, in particular, is a skill not a trace of character. Tolerance as a personal skill could be developed and enhanced or could be neglected. I believe that tolerance is a personal choice, which is arising from values, cultural perceptions, and judgement of the individual. Though, it is complicated choice framed by social norms, state policy, and law. Interestingly enough, intolerance is derived from the same sources.