Griffen Leininger 14260336 Culture relativism is a great idea that many believe come with consequence but those consequences are not that critical. Culture relativism in a brief definition is that moral codes are based on individual societies. You can compare different cultures to see how this can be true along with exploring the consequences that come along with it. Culture Relativism is an idea that few believe to be correct and true to live by. When defining culture relativism there are many components that form the definition. Citizens of different cultures from around the world have set and believe in different moral codes. Each of which either believes that their moral code is superior to another one or find fault in other codes.
…show more content…
Equality is a subject that can fuel many debates all around the world in many different societies to make sure that every group of people feels included. This is good for culture relativist since they believe that all moral codes would be held to and have the same standards. There also would accept this due to the fact they believe that no societies moral code is superior to another. Culture relativist has the mindset that each culture's moral codes are worthy in their own culture. The standards that each society set are based on their own beliefs. They believe that they cannot judge others moral code based on their standards since each society is …show more content…
Not being able to say that our moral code is better than another is not a sufficient reason to turn the whole idea away. If we believe that we are doing the right thing who cares about what others think about our moral code. We are not to judge others without taking in all conditions of the situation into consideration. We do not need to be accepted by everyone to live a good life, we just need to believe that our own morals are good. Therefore, we would not need to claim any moral code as being superior. The other consequence of not being able to decide what is right from wrong could be a problem but it is not unacceptable. If we believe that we are doing the right thing who cares about what others think about our actions. No matter what we do someone will always consider it wrong. If someone is always going to have a different opinion, then why would we need to decide if something is right or wrong? This consequence is irrelevant we do not need to others to tell us whether we are right or wrong we just need to believe that we are doing the right thing. The last consequence of being able to decide if we have progressed morally can form a debate of whether it is relevant or not. Moral progression is something that you can either believe is good or you can just not care about it. We can live a normal life without the idea of moral progression, it does not
Equality is a subject that can fuel many debates all around the world in many different societies to make sure that every group of people feels included. This is good for culture relativist since they believe that all moral codes would be held to and have the same standards. There also would accept this due to the fact they believe that no societies moral code is superior to another. Culture relativist has the mindset that each culture's moral codes are worthy in their own culture. The standards that each society set are based on their own beliefs. They believe that they cannot judge others moral code based on their standards since each society is …show more content…
Not being able to say that our moral code is better than another is not a sufficient reason to turn the whole idea away. If we believe that we are doing the right thing who cares about what others think about our moral code. We are not to judge others without taking in all conditions of the situation into consideration. We do not need to be accepted by everyone to live a good life, we just need to believe that our own morals are good. Therefore, we would not need to claim any moral code as being superior. The other consequence of not being able to decide what is right from wrong could be a problem but it is not unacceptable. If we believe that we are doing the right thing who cares about what others think about our actions. No matter what we do someone will always consider it wrong. If someone is always going to have a different opinion, then why would we need to decide if something is right or wrong? This consequence is irrelevant we do not need to others to tell us whether we are right or wrong we just need to believe that we are doing the right thing. The last consequence of being able to decide if we have progressed morally can form a debate of whether it is relevant or not. Moral progression is something that you can either believe is good or you can just not care about it. We can live a normal life without the idea of moral progression, it does not