In short, to any teleological theory, murder could potentially be justified, and therefore proved to be the morally right thing to do. It is possible to talk about the truth or falsity of a moral judgment but only in the context of pre-existing standards or value systems. To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added. However, when applied in an everyday setting, it is quite chaotic. Such an effort at persuasions, however, could involve Protagoras in a performative contradiction as the relativist cannot assume that her arguments are good for persuading others.
Cultural relativism has applications in ethics, politics, religion and philosophy. It is however worth noting that Einstein did not think that the Theory of Relativity supported relativism in ethics or epistemology because, although in his model simultaneity and sameness of place are relative to reference frames, the physical laws expressing such relativity are constant and universal and hence in no sense relative. According to Bloor, The Azande have the same psychology as us but radically different institutions. Although this process can allow for disturbing results, most cultures are based on inclusion instead of exclusion. There are no universally valid moral principles and so there is no one true morality. In its place the standards, morals as well as behaviors that differ among society should be taken into contemplation or consideration.
Because of the ethical diversity all over the world, this means we have to be tolerable to all opinions and can not judge anyone or deem their actions right or wrong. When you reached the end of the last post you may have already firmly decided which theory you like best, or which you think works better. Ethical relativism is the concept that there are no universally valid moral principles. Trivial versions allow that the world can be described in different ways, but make no claims to the incompatibility of these descriptions. It's not about strength or weakness. This can happen even when the sentence does not contain an overtly indexical expression.
Moral and ethical standards and behavioral practices vary across cultures. Even anti-relativists such as Karl Popper admit that the idea that observations are not in some way tinted by theoretical assumptions is naïve. In an age where tolerance is increasingly being seen as the most important virtue of all, this can seem to be an attractive position. Barnes transs , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994,. In his The Geography of Thought 2003 , Nisbett has generalized his results to claim that Asian and European structures of thinking, including perception and conceptualization, differ significantly. The above illustrates places where certain ideas do not exist, so the local languages in use obviously have no word for that idea.
In order to make a cross-cultural moral comparison, we need a cross-cultural moral standard, which is precisely the kind of moral standard that cultural relativism claims does not exist. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society. As Egan and Weatherson 2011: 4 remark: …statements of epistemic possibility in plain English do not make any explicit reference to such a person, group, evidence set, or information state. Truth is not objective, henceforth there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. It eliminates one bias for another. So, should the view of the sanctity of life be regarded as a moral absolute, and thus making abortion the morally right or wrong thing to do? Relativism, with its attendant denial that there could be objective and universal scientific truths or knowledge exacts too high a price for dealing with these allegedly troublesome features of the methodology and history of science.
In this case managers speak of developing the right kind of culture or a culture of quality, which ump lied in this usage is the assumption that there are better or worse cultures, stronger or weaker cultures, and the right kind of culture will influence how effective organisations are. For the most part, humanity is strong because of the differences we all have. So directors of a corporation often make collective decisions that may negatively affect the rest of society, in order to make profit for shareholders. In cultural relativism, you get to pursue your own interests without restriction. Think back to the Euthyphro problem. For these exact reasons, it is simple for a common person to fallaciously infer that there is no objective truth— one may be inclined to believe that all truths are relative to the respective individual. Relativistically inclined commentators have argued that the Azande both do and do not contradict themselves depending on, or relative to, the culture that is being taken as the vantage point Bloor 1976: 124 and Jennings 1989: 281.
Second, and more importantly: political toleration does not require the strong doctrine of philosophical relativism. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. Respect is encouraged in a system of cultural relativism. So, are the cogs turning yet? We cannot step out of our language, culture and socio-historical conditions to survey reality from an Archimedean vantage point. Few people would however accept this line of reasoning and many applaud the bravery of those who protested and, in the Tiananmen Square uprising in particular, lost their lives. From this standpoint, we might frame other cultures as weird, exotic, intriguing, and even as problems to be solved.
Each culture can be treated as an individual under the theory of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is an appealing theory; it should be the goal in terms of promoting tolerance and peace. What should we aim at, or take others to be aiming at?. On the other hand, Marx, who was Hegel's student, rejected this notion and said that the material world was fundamental. The anti-relativist may concede the point and insist that where such disagreements exist, at most one view is correct and the rest mistaken. The only person that judges you is yourself. This means that there is no such thing as good in itself, as there are many different opinions on one topic that one person may see as good, but another may not.