An array of unique cultures and ethnic practices can be discovered on every corner of the globe but despite the rich cultural and historical significance associated with them, they may seem unsavory to others. This paper will examine the cultural utilization of rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and post-mortem endocannibalism in the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea in contrast with customs observed in the United States. As a result of the stark contrariety between these ethnic conventions, ‘ethical correctness’ comes into question when determining whether or not these customs should be tolerated in a modern globalized society. Conventional Relativism and Moderate Objectivism are two ethical schools of thought that
…show more content…
Conventional Ethical Relativism (Conventionalism) argues that “all moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance” (18). In other words, moral principles are not universally valid, rather they are only validated by a culture or individual choice. This theory can be further developed by addressing the Diversity and Dependency theses and Melville Herskovits’ argument supporting the intrinsic values of tolerance in ethical relativism. The Diversity thesis states “what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so there are no universal moral standards held by all societies” and the Dependency thesis states “all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance" (19). Thus, the diversity and dependency theses permits those in the DRC to claim that rape is morally right since morality can vary between societies and its practice is culturally accepted in the …show more content…
In other words, there must be “at least one objective principle that is binding on all people everywhere”; a set of these principles make up core morality which catalogues all requisite conventions to achieve “the good life within a flourishing human community” (40). “Do no kill innocent people”, “Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering”—these examples help explain a fundamental attribute regarding core moral principles, each are cardinal fragments which converge into a “successful society”, crucial for “social cohesion and personal well-being” (40). Despite the seemingly rigid nature of core morality, a cornerstone of moderate objectivism is that these principles are prima facie, or not absolutes—scilicet, some moral principles may take precedence over another in some context, therefore overriding the latter. Since no principles can be deemed absolute, Objectivists base their moral system on “a common human nature with common needs and desires” which appraises a ‘social reality’ for validation but focuses on “the reality of our common nature as rational beings” as opposed to “cultural acceptance”
Conventional Ethical Relativism (Conventionalism) argues that “all moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance” (18). In other words, moral principles are not universally valid, rather they are only validated by a culture or individual choice. This theory can be further developed by addressing the Diversity and Dependency theses and Melville Herskovits’ argument supporting the intrinsic values of tolerance in ethical relativism. The Diversity thesis states “what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so there are no universal moral standards held by all societies” and the Dependency thesis states “all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance" (19). Thus, the diversity and dependency theses permits those in the DRC to claim that rape is morally right since morality can vary between societies and its practice is culturally accepted in the …show more content…
In other words, there must be “at least one objective principle that is binding on all people everywhere”; a set of these principles make up core morality which catalogues all requisite conventions to achieve “the good life within a flourishing human community” (40). “Do no kill innocent people”, “Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering”—these examples help explain a fundamental attribute regarding core moral principles, each are cardinal fragments which converge into a “successful society”, crucial for “social cohesion and personal well-being” (40). Despite the seemingly rigid nature of core morality, a cornerstone of moderate objectivism is that these principles are prima facie, or not absolutes—scilicet, some moral principles may take precedence over another in some context, therefore overriding the latter. Since no principles can be deemed absolute, Objectivists base their moral system on “a common human nature with common needs and desires” which appraises a ‘social reality’ for validation but focuses on “the reality of our common nature as rational beings” as opposed to “cultural acceptance”