Oh dear, the absolutists are back...

Heathen!

That's my word of today, I like it now. It is a great word to throw at people who disagree with you. But now, I am going to shout at people for beleiving in moral absolutism. There is a good reason for this; I've lost interest in keeping myself unbias. But instead, I will sign my bias material with "Devex3" and specifically, rebut other people's statements. Specifically, it is one to this link: http://swordofthespirituk.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/it-seems-absolutism-is-infectious/. I don't really think I should promote others, so I will quote what they said and specifically rebut what they said.

I shall go over why cultural relativism is correct, and moral absolutism is false, and a poor moral standard to live by.

We live in a rapidly changing world society, which is increasingly bringing people of various cultures in closer interaction with each other. This interaction can be positive or negative depending on the level of sensitivity and respect people have for other cultural groups. These two types of behaviors are related to the two important concepts examined in this presentation— ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Negative attitudes towards other cultures and/or ethnic groups arise out of ethnocentrism, while positive attitudes are the result of a culturally relativist approach. If people are going to be successful in today's multicultural, information age, world society, they will need to develop a culturally sensitive frame of reference and mode of operation. It is the purpose of this presentation to help people move from an ethnocentric, exclusive mindset to a culturally sensitive modus operandi, by clarifying what is meant by ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, how each operates, and what are the steps that move a person from one perspective to the other. One of the most controversial challenges to the study of social ethics comes from a methodological approach of the social sciences called, cultural relativism. “Cultural relativism is in essence an approach to the question of the nature and role of values in culture”, says Hersovits.

Thus, we can't go around passing judgment on what other people do. For, “if all morality is relative, then what moral objection could one make to the Nazi holocaust, to the economic deprivation of a Latin American underclass, or to a militaristic nation's unleashing nuclear devastation on others? And what would be wrong with conducting painful experiments on young children, using them for case studies on the long-term psychological effects of mutilation? In a world where no moral court of appeals exists, might makes right. The only appeal can be to power”, says Holmes. I think now I'll stop quoting, and start actually arguing my point.

The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity will weaken morality. “If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all relative anyway." But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean. The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual Cultural

warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable. Part of the problem has to do with ethnocentrism, the polar opposite of cultural relativism. Both concepts, ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, can be placed as polar ends of a continuum, each reflecting a different approach, either as exclusive or inclusive; a different mindset either closed or open to differences, and an attitude and behavior that is either insensitive or sensitive to another culture.

Vincent Ruggiero tells us that "just as it is natural for us to read the behaviour of others in terms of our own standards, so it is natural to view actions in other cultures from the codes of our own standards, so it is natural to view actions in other cultures from the codes of our culture. What seems fair to us we assume is fair to them; and when we see an action we regard as of their code may reveal that they have not only not been violating it, but in fact observing it”

How can one eliminate ethnocentrism? Vincent Ruggiero suggests three important steps to take which will enable us “to penetrate deception of appearance.”

1. “Study the cultural context in which the action occurs.”

2. “Determine the circumstances of time, place, and condition surrounding it.”

3. “Learn the reasoning that underlies it and the moral value it reflects.”

At the heart of these three steps lies the importance of learning to “take the role of the other,” the ability to see things, especially that with which we are not familiar, from the perspective of the other before any consideration of judgment is considered.

Understanding this difference of approach can help us to grasp the importance of cultural relativism and where ethicists have misunderstood its positive contributions. What is cultural relativism? It is the idea that each culture or ethnic group is to be evaluated on the basis of its own values and norms of behavior and not on the basis of those of another culture or ethnic group. The basic principle out of which cultural relativism emerges is a simple one: “Judgments are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his or her own enculturation”

I shall leave with this quote about the topic.

“physician is expected to treat patients he dislikes or whom she believes are a social menace with the same care with which she or he treats their other patients. A judge, in her role of citizen, vigorously condemns a defendant, but, in her role of judge, discharges the culprit. This is not regarded as inconsistent or schizoid behavior. An actor wins applause for the

excellence of his enactment of the villain's role, not because of his personal approval or disapproval of the character portrayed. The latter question is recognized as a separate matter, of relevance in other contexts. Exactly the same is true of the scientist. He or she has performed their full function as scientist when they have clearly depicted the consequences of a proposed type of behavior—for example, when they have accurately predicted an explosion. Their applause or abhorrence of the explosion is not part of their scientific conclusion or function”