The first area of knowledge I will be looking at is Ethics. It appears that in this area, culturally derived concepts shape the moral conclusions (for example values) that people reach thus leading to apparent diversity. In order to challenge this apparent diversity one can explore two contrasting principles Cultural relativism and Soft Universalism.
Cultural relativism states that there is a diversity of ethical codes and that there are no universal moral principles. The first example I will be using to prove this is taken from Darius’ (the king of ancient Persia) findings. He found that Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers, while the Greeks practiced cremation. When he asked the Greeks what it would take them to eat their dead …show more content…
Soft Universalism sustains that there are core universal concepts beneath the diverse conceptions adopted by communities. These concepts are independent of culture and are derived from reason because if societies didn’t embed these concepts, they wouldn’t be able to survive.
For example, a society that doesn’t value telling the truth wouldn’t exist since communication is key. Truth between members of a society is an important element for development and secure living. If it were commonplace to lie, there would be no presumption that anyone was telling the truth. Therefore, there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone was saying. Communication would be very difficult and, since societies wouldn’t exist without it, it follows that every society must value truthfulness.
A society would also not exist if there were no prohibition against murder. No one would feel safe in such a community and associating with others would be self-defying and irrational. The society would collapse and people would form smaller communities that did acknowledge a rule against murder. Consequently, there are some moral rules that all societies must embrace based on reason, which transcends culture. However, the way these concepts are expressed can differ from culture to culture for two …show more content…
Looking back at the Eskimos, there are many reasons why they killed healthy babies. Firstly, they live in a harsh environment with short food supply, next Eskimos were nomadic and lacked birth control, and lastly, in the Eskimo society boys were the hunters and suffered high casuality rates. If the female babies weren’t killed, the female population would outnumber the male population. Therefore, while killing healthy babies would be condemned in our societies, among Eskimos infanticide was solely practiced to help the families’ survival. Consequently, the Eskimo’s values were not at all different from our own, it is just that life forced choices upon them that we don’t have to make. All in all, the apparent difference in conclusion is less different than it
Cultural relativism states that there is a diversity of ethical codes and that there are no universal moral principles. The first example I will be using to prove this is taken from Darius’ (the king of ancient Persia) findings. He found that Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers, while the Greeks practiced cremation. When he asked the Greeks what it would take them to eat their dead …show more content…
Soft Universalism sustains that there are core universal concepts beneath the diverse conceptions adopted by communities. These concepts are independent of culture and are derived from reason because if societies didn’t embed these concepts, they wouldn’t be able to survive.
For example, a society that doesn’t value telling the truth wouldn’t exist since communication is key. Truth between members of a society is an important element for development and secure living. If it were commonplace to lie, there would be no presumption that anyone was telling the truth. Therefore, there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone was saying. Communication would be very difficult and, since societies wouldn’t exist without it, it follows that every society must value truthfulness.
A society would also not exist if there were no prohibition against murder. No one would feel safe in such a community and associating with others would be self-defying and irrational. The society would collapse and people would form smaller communities that did acknowledge a rule against murder. Consequently, there are some moral rules that all societies must embrace based on reason, which transcends culture. However, the way these concepts are expressed can differ from culture to culture for two …show more content…
Looking back at the Eskimos, there are many reasons why they killed healthy babies. Firstly, they live in a harsh environment with short food supply, next Eskimos were nomadic and lacked birth control, and lastly, in the Eskimo society boys were the hunters and suffered high casuality rates. If the female babies weren’t killed, the female population would outnumber the male population. Therefore, while killing healthy babies would be condemned in our societies, among Eskimos infanticide was solely practiced to help the families’ survival. Consequently, the Eskimo’s values were not at all different from our own, it is just that life forced choices upon them that we don’t have to make. All in all, the apparent difference in conclusion is less different than it