Benedict and Midgley The thesis of Benedict’s is that moral relativism is the correct view of the morality.
Benedict’s claim that every culture is different from one another. Morality differs from every culture, that’s why what is moral to one culture can be immoral to another. Which culture is right is which one is wrong? it is part of the culture points of view, because if every culture has different standards or right and wrong then we cannot say which one is the one with the total truth. Benedict uses normal behavior as a moral behavior and some of the example she uses in her writings show how sometimes some actions are abnormal in the culture, but with time it changes and they become normal. Morality is limit to and culture, with time …show more content…
Moral isolationism is the view that we cannot understand a culture enough to make judgments about it. The only culture we know is our own, because we are part of it. She thinks that it is impossible to have moral isolationism, because our own culture was created by the influences of many other cultures. What are the four questions? 1.- Does the isolating barrier work both ways?, Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? Midgley with these questions is demonstrating how we as a culture can be criticized, as well as we can criticize other cultures. Midgley answer these questions with an example in which a South American Indian, who lived two weeks among a group of white Brazilians while they were saving his life. After he was saved he was criticizing the way of life of the people who save his life, he condemn their practices after just two weeks living with them. Midgley, uses this example to support that moral isolationism is false, and we as individuals can criticize other cultures even if we are not part of them. The South American Indian, share just a part of this culture and in just two weeks is almost impossible to understand a way of life. Therefore, he was basing his claims on his own principals. Comparing this white Brazilians with his own …show more content…
This question help us thing about the way we thing as a society. What we let inside our own society, she talks about respect being earned. But to earn respect it is necessary to have a reason why. We cannot give respect to a culture just because we thing is honorable or right one or more things that culture did. We need to look more deeply and if we want to give respect or praise an event of a culture we should look at the dark side of the events as well. It is hypocritical to take just some of the actions and talk about those. If we look into a culture we need o do it as a whole, not omitting what we like. Every culture has good and bad events, traditions and customs, but if we what too talk about any of them we should consider the others as well. In the event of us respecting or condemning a culture for their actions, we certainly are criticizing them without being part of them. Not isolating our culture, actually we are bringing a part of their culture to
Benedict’s claim that every culture is different from one another. Morality differs from every culture, that’s why what is moral to one culture can be immoral to another. Which culture is right is which one is wrong? it is part of the culture points of view, because if every culture has different standards or right and wrong then we cannot say which one is the one with the total truth. Benedict uses normal behavior as a moral behavior and some of the example she uses in her writings show how sometimes some actions are abnormal in the culture, but with time it changes and they become normal. Morality is limit to and culture, with time …show more content…
Moral isolationism is the view that we cannot understand a culture enough to make judgments about it. The only culture we know is our own, because we are part of it. She thinks that it is impossible to have moral isolationism, because our own culture was created by the influences of many other cultures. What are the four questions? 1.- Does the isolating barrier work both ways?, Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? Midgley with these questions is demonstrating how we as a culture can be criticized, as well as we can criticize other cultures. Midgley answer these questions with an example in which a South American Indian, who lived two weeks among a group of white Brazilians while they were saving his life. After he was saved he was criticizing the way of life of the people who save his life, he condemn their practices after just two weeks living with them. Midgley, uses this example to support that moral isolationism is false, and we as individuals can criticize other cultures even if we are not part of them. The South American Indian, share just a part of this culture and in just two weeks is almost impossible to understand a way of life. Therefore, he was basing his claims on his own principals. Comparing this white Brazilians with his own …show more content…
This question help us thing about the way we thing as a society. What we let inside our own society, she talks about respect being earned. But to earn respect it is necessary to have a reason why. We cannot give respect to a culture just because we thing is honorable or right one or more things that culture did. We need to look more deeply and if we want to give respect or praise an event of a culture we should look at the dark side of the events as well. It is hypocritical to take just some of the actions and talk about those. If we look into a culture we need o do it as a whole, not omitting what we like. Every culture has good and bad events, traditions and customs, but if we what too talk about any of them we should consider the others as well. In the event of us respecting or condemning a culture for their actions, we certainly are criticizing them without being part of them. Not isolating our culture, actually we are bringing a part of their culture to