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”.
She re-defines it as being misleading. She states that normally we define “privilege” as being a favored state, either earned or with luck, being born privileged. McIntosh explores the interlocking of hierarchies and determines that they are both active parties in oppression, because it is imbedded in both. The dominant race are imbedded in believing that there is equality, and that racism comes in forms of actual intent of harming and being mean to other not included in the dominant category. The non-dominant of the races are led to be “unconfident, uncomfortable, and alienated.” This is what the different social classes are brought up to
RAWLS’ ORIGINAL POSITION AS THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF HIS THEORY OF JUSTICE David Hume pointed out that problems of justice typically arise when in situations of scarcity we seek to adjudicate between competing claims for limited goods (Feinberg 1980: 141). Different philosophers have proposed different theories of justice. One such philosopher is John Rawls whose theory of justice he called “justice as fairness”. His theory begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions (Pojman 1995: 630). In yielding the name “justice as fairness”, Rawls proposes the concept of “the original position” as the appropriate initial status quo which ensures that fundamental agreements reached in it are fair.
Nevertheless, one major criticism of these structuralist approaches, i.e. Marxism and Feminism, is that they are grounded theories; these would infer that the theories may be thought of first and then evidence would be selected to back them up. Thus, two famous sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss argued that this is the wrong order to approach research, as
Firstly is social interest, such as health and safety and public order, whilst individual interests include privacy and domestic relations. Pound believed where possible the law should create a level playing field of these interests meaning social interests should be weighed against social interests and individual interests against individual interests as a failure to do this will result in a bias in favour of social interest. Karl Marx believed the law was part of the ‘repressive state apparatus’ used to ensure the continuing exploitation of the working class members of society by the upper and ruling classes. For Marx, the law treated as lesser the interests of the lower classes to those of the upper classes and so did not and would not truly
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.
Why is diversity valued? Diversity can be defined as dissimilarity in an individual’s heritage, beliefs, race, mental capabilities, physical appearance, and etc. ; it should be useful because there is no one completely the same as another. Diversity is valued because of the unlawfulness of discrimination may disgrace someone’s business and it could cost the company if someone sue the company for discrimination. We need diversity because it brings different point of views and judgment to the table, it also could shape things such as the government, and cultural aspects like food, clothing, and tactics to build and create things.
a) Culture bias is a tendancy within psychology theory & research to ignore differences between cultures and impose understanding based on a single culture, mainly weastern. The most significant of which, ethnocentrism. A term used to describe the belief of superiority of ones own culture. The opposite of ethnocentrism is cultural relativism. The idea that all cultures are equaly respect, and cultural research is a way of seeing another way of life.
The difference between ideology and science, "false and truth’ is highlighted and therefore crucial to his usage of the term. Karl treated ideology as a fleeting actuality. Ideology is also related to the class scheme, a scheme that Marx believed to reflect the interests of the ruling class in society. Liberalism is considered the standard example of ideology because it depicts the rights exclusive to the privileged as universal rights. Ideology is a demonstration of power.
It has motioned an upbringing of ideas that have knocked out the primitive and the pertinently worthless. So can I safely say now that a phenomenon like gender differences and biases is a fact of yesteryears? The validity of this questionable assumption heavily rests on value laden judgments more than objective facts. The choice ultimately is to walk in hand with either one or fuse them into a cocktail of dualistic reality. Christening my opinions collectively as the forward force, I appeal