Cultural Relativism is an essay written by Harry Gensler which main purpose is to provide a deeper understanding of such teaching as cultural relativism. In accordance with an essay social approval is the main criteria of morality. In this way, those acts that were approved by society can be considered as good. However, those that were not accepted in term of certain society can be considered as bad. Author of an essay argues that relativism is that deeply problematic. Gensler distinguishes four reasons that present additional doubts to the teaching of cultural relativism and accept the challenge to answer the question “Should moral laws apply to all people in all societies?”
First of all, author emphasizes that as long as society can make …show more content…
Cultural relativism solely sees each group as only a system with its own unified system of values. This “we are right and they are wrong” attitude may have worked better in conditions when cultures were separated from each other. However, for now, humanity live in a world where technology connect cultures; develops new ideas of transcontinental flights, multinational corporations, and the Internet, of course. Definitely, today we need ways to find a necessary balance in disputes between societies and to establish new common norms. Societies, as long as they face and deal with different life problems, can learn much from each other. Since cultural relativism, in the most cases, do not help with such problems, it gives a poor ground for life in our contemporary society. Only few things can contribute our moral growth even for a greater degree than cultural relativism. CR reveals that whatever is socially approved must considered as good. So, basically, if money are socially approved as the biggest value, it is good. Moreover, if it is socially approved to put Jews in concentration camps, then this must be good as well. “Good” does not mean “socially approved.” In modern world, what is socially approved may sometimes be very bad. With no doubts, well-said that “so long as society can make moral mistakes, then its approval is not enough to show that something is morally good”. Logically that an imperfect society can not perfectly judge the accuracy of a person's
First of all, author emphasizes that as long as society can make …show more content…
Cultural relativism solely sees each group as only a system with its own unified system of values. This “we are right and they are wrong” attitude may have worked better in conditions when cultures were separated from each other. However, for now, humanity live in a world where technology connect cultures; develops new ideas of transcontinental flights, multinational corporations, and the Internet, of course. Definitely, today we need ways to find a necessary balance in disputes between societies and to establish new common norms. Societies, as long as they face and deal with different life problems, can learn much from each other. Since cultural relativism, in the most cases, do not help with such problems, it gives a poor ground for life in our contemporary society. Only few things can contribute our moral growth even for a greater degree than cultural relativism. CR reveals that whatever is socially approved must considered as good. So, basically, if money are socially approved as the biggest value, it is good. Moreover, if it is socially approved to put Jews in concentration camps, then this must be good as well. “Good” does not mean “socially approved.” In modern world, what is socially approved may sometimes be very bad. With no doubts, well-said that “so long as society can make moral mistakes, then its approval is not enough to show that something is morally good”. Logically that an imperfect society can not perfectly judge the accuracy of a person's