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”.
I am writing this letter regarding the issues of live cattle export published in the age's education section issues. The writer's contention is telling the reader about the live export trade from Indonesia and cruelty to Australian cattle being harmed in Indonesia and being exported. The writer also explains to the reader about how this is done and how these animals are being harmed. My contention of this issue is that I think that live export trade should not happen as it is putting too much harm and stress on the cattle. In my opinion I think live cattle export should stop, it is just a bad image for Indonesia.
Other qualitative data collection method under Qualitative Design includes Participant Observation and focus group. The following are challenges faced with participant observation and the strategy to be deployed to overcome this. • Time consumption is a big challenge and this is mitigated by involving researchers who already possess a solid base of cultural awareness of the region or ethnography under study to be among the data collection team. • Challenge of data documentation and this is mitigated by strict discipline and diligence to expand researcher recorded thought or observation. • The objectivity in documenting researcher observation because this process is inherently subjective.
There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat. The main point in her article is that to eat meat is to support a cruel system of meat production. Rachels argues against Kant's belief that animals do not have a moral standing and are merely a means to an end, which is man. Rachels believes that
According to Harris, they are referencing different components of humanity. In ideal U.S. culture, one would not understand these differences. It is important for ethnographers and world travelers to understand these differences in relation to other cultures because other cultures may have multiple words for the essence of a person (individual and self are considered in this essence). According to Grace
Moral standards are relative to the culture and the moral codes of the culture determines what’s right or wrong within that specific culture. Although cultural relativism might be true, the theory is being criticized
Cultural relativism in my opinion is how you look at someone’s culture, beliefs, and rituals although you may not do these same things you can agree to them as being relative or relevant to their own personal and social views. Cultural relativism is important to anthropologist because when they do fieldwork they have to look at cultures with a holistic view and have to see everything done and in their own point of view and relate it to the culture of the society of people doing it. Not to be understood by other people but totally understood by the society doing it so right or wrong is culture specific. There is no standard for morality in today’s society nobody has the right to be judged by their customs. Cultural relativist believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value no one that is not in the society can say whether it is right or wrong for some of the practices done to be wrong.
The Morality of Killing Animals: An Investigation in Utilitarian Ethics. Research Question The killing of non-human animals remains an unsolved problem in utilitarian ethics and has generated heated debate amongst ethicists in recent times. My aim is to illuminate this issue, specifically the morality of killing animals when it is done painlessly. In doing so I intend to tackle several questions: What, if anything, makes killing wrong? Does the wrongness of killing animals (human and non-human) depend on them possessing specific attributes?
Social Distance The technical term for this social distance is objectivity - the ability to remain detached, aloof or personally separate from the people you are researching. There are a couple of important dimensions to objectivity (namely, personal and methodological) but for the moment we can consider it as involving the ability to avoid: The intrusion of our personal beliefs (or values) into the research process. Influencing the way respondents reply to our questions or behaviour. Subjective Sociology This, in some ways, is similar to the aim in an unfocused interview. However, a new dimension is added to the research process by the ability to "see for yourself" the behaviour that people describe in an interview or questionnaire.
In contrast, animal welfare takes the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. The debate between those who support animal research and those who don’t is often portrayed in such a way that one group appears to care about animals while the other group doesn’t. This isn’t the case at all. Fundamentally, the issue is about how to reduce the total suffering for both humans and animals and it can be done by raising concern over