Just one more thing that I discovered recently that I think pertains to most discussions we have in class, which are the following two terms that I read in an article recently (actually, the last article I posted):
Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture, in many ethical contexts this is said to mean those who assert primacy of cultural values over human rights. Also sometimes used interchangeably with moral relativism, especially in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cultural relativists are generally found saying, "but how can we criticize that if it's their culture?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
Universality: a doctrine or school claiming universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism. When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals." Universalists are generally found saying, "but still, you just can't DO that to people!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)
I've seen these two schools of though butt heads pretty often in our class, but also mix a lot as well. Just thought it was some interesting information for everyone to ponder! Both relativism and universality have their good points and their bad points. Pure relativists and pure universalists tend to come into conflict a lot on the same fundamental issues; it seems like a happy medium between the two, in which one looks at certain issues with a context of culture but also tries to follow some basic human rights guidelines when thinking about how to go about making sense of those issues, works best. It's hard though, it seems to me that most people lean at least slightly one way or another. What do you all think????
No comments:
Post a Comment