Challenges of Cultural Relativism

Cultures, beliefs, and values have solid impact on developing socially acceptable behaviors and customs. When customs differ across cultures, the values often change also. When an individual examines a different culture, questions and feelings arise due to their own beliefs. The challenge of cultural relativism is to make rational decisions on what morals can be considered absolute. This is not an easy task because morals differ in every society. This briefly describes some of the characteristics of the Eskimos. This culture is far different than any stereotypical nuclear family in the United States. For example, the Eskimos practice polygamy and infanticide. To many Americans these two common practices among a different culture may seem extreme. On the other hand, Eskimos feel what they do is acceptable within their own culture. The author illustrates this example as a way to demonstrate the challenge of accepting cultural relativism As we all know, the United States is a complex system of many different cultures interacting at all times. Professionals working in the field of ethics must have a terrible time defining those absolutes in the U.S. where customs are variable. According to it, Cultural Relativism states that all morality is relative to culture, that the truth of ethical claims is relative to an individual or group's perspective. Cultural Relativism holds that an action is morally right or morally wrong because of the beliefs and values of the culture in which the action takes place. Therefore cultural relativism denies the possibility of any objective foundation for moral rules or obligations. In the sections 2.1 and 2.2 The author defines what Cultural Relativism is all about by giving us a glimpse of different cultural practices form more accepted funeral cremation by Greeks to barbaric (to us) flesh eating practice of Callatians to going against our institution of marriage Eskimo practices or polygamy and "wife swapping". The third section considers one argument in support of cultural relativism and then offers objections to that argument. She goes on setting up 6 claims of Cultural Relativism: 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. 3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. 4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.With rules 4 and 5 more essential for Cultural Relativism definition then others. I feel cultural relativism should have a set universal moral code that everyone should follow because, even though a group might believe that something that could be illegal is morally acceptable, does not make it right even if a large group believes in it. There are right and wrongs in this world and people of this world should stick to them. 547 Different societies have different moral codes. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. The moral code of our own society has no special status. There is no “universal truth” in ethics that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times. Therefore there is no objective moral “truth”. Just a matter of opinion and opinion differs between cultures. Greeks and Callatians about death ceremonies. Eskimo and North American about infanticide. 

Themes in Wuthering Heights?

The destructiveness of love that never changes is a reoccurring theme in Wuthering Heights. Catherine and Heathcliff’s passion for one another seems to be the center ofWuthering Heights, given that it is stronger and more lasting than any other emotion displayed in the novel, and that it is the source of most of the major conflicts that structure the novel’s plot. As she tells Catherine and Heathcliff’s story, Nelly criticizes both of them harshly, condemning their passion as immoral, but this passion is obviously one of the most compelling and memorable aspects of the book. It is not easy to decide whether Brontë intends the reader to condemn these lovers as blameworthy or to idealize them as romantic heroes whose love transcends social norms and conventional morality. The book is actually structured around two parallel love stories, the first half of the novel centering on the love between Catherine and Heathcliff, while the less dramatic second half features the developing love between young Catherine and Hareton. In contrast to the first, the latter tale ends happily, restoring peace and order to Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. The differences between the two love stories contribute to the reader’s understanding of why each ends the way it does.

The most important feature of young Catherine and Hareton’s love story is that it involves growth and change. Early in the novel Hareton seems irredeemably brutal, savage, and illiterate, but over time he becomes a loyal friend to young Catherine and learns to read. When young Catherine first meets Hareton he seems completely alien to her world, yet her attitude also evolves from contempt to love. Catherine and Heathcliff’s love, on the other hand, is rooted in their childhood and is marked by the refusal to change. In choosing to marry Edgar, Catherine seeks a more gentel life, but she refuses to adapt to her role as wife, either by sacrificing Heathcliff or embracing Edgar. In Chapter XII she suggests to Nelly that the years since she was twelve years old and her father died have been like a blank to her, and she longs to return to the moors of her childhood. Heathcliff, for his part, possesses a seemingly superhuman ability to maintain the same attitude and to nurse the same grudges over many years.

Moreover, Catherine and Heathcliff’s love is based on their shared perception that they are identical. Catherine declares, famously, “I am Heathcliff,” while Heathcliff, upon Catherine’s death, wails that he cannot live without his “soul,” meaning Catherine. Their love denies difference, and is strangely asexual. The two do not kiss in dark corners or arrange secret trysts, as adulterers do. Given that Catherine and Heathcliff’s love is based upon their refusal to change over time or embrace difference in others, it is fitting that the disastrous problems of their generation are overcome not by some climactic reversal, but simply by the inexorable passage of time, and the rise of a new and distinct generation. Ultimately, Wuthering Heights presents a vision of life as a process of change, and celebrates this process over and against the romantic intensity of its principal characters. 

There is a lot of people in society that claim to hate each other, when in reality they love each other. That is the only person they can be with, no matter the circumstance. In society there is always a destructiveness of love, more then half of marriages and relationships end in break ups or divorces, it is hard to find a "soul mate" or someone that is like you in a certain way that does not annoy you.

Was Oedipus's fate avoidable?

Prophecy is a central part of Oedipus the King. The play begins with Creon’s return from the oracle at Delphi, where he has learned that the plague will be lifted if Thebes banishes the man who killed Laius. Tiresias prophesies the capture of one who is both father and brother to his own children. Oedipus tells Jocasta of a prophecy he heard as a youth, that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother, and Jocasta tells Oedipus of a similar prophecy given to Laius, that her son would grow up to kill his father. Oedipus and Jocasta debate the extent to which prophecies should be trusted at all, and when all of the prophecies come true, it appears that one of Sophocles’ aims is to justify the powers of the gods and prophets, which had recently come under attack in fifth-century B.C. Athens. Oedipus believed to be fated by the Gods, that he would kill his father and marry his mother, which happened to become reality for poor Oedipus who tried to avoid this path his whole life. I do not believe his fate was avoidable because Oedipus did everything he could to diminish his fate, he thought he was avoiding his fate by leaving his mom and dad, who were not his real parents. I think Oedipus should of been suspicious of the accident that he committed, killing his father, that should of been a red flag to him. If Oedipus went in another direction besides Thebes, he would of been fine, coming nowhere near to his mother, but the Gods made him go in the direction of his mother, he did not have a choice. He was even smart enough to solve the riddle of the sphinx. I think that Oedipus's downfall was that he never went to the oracle for help or believed what the oracle was saying to him, he was ignorant. When Oedipus realized that his fate became a reality, it was to late for him to change the course of events, what was done was done, there is nothing more he could of done, besides gouge his eyes out because now he had the knowledge. I do not think Oedipus could have taken another path. He was doomed from the start. Even Jocasta his mother did not realize it was her son, which maybe you would think that a mother could have a sense that it is their son. The Gods played a dirty trick on Oedipus and he was set on a path that could not be tampered with. The blind prophet told him what was happening, but it was to late for Oedipus to do anything about it. In the end, Oedipus should of just stayed where he was born with his fake mom and dad, which would of avoided his whole fate, but then again Oedipus thought he had control when he really did not, the gods had all the control and Oedipus was just a puppet in their game.

Invisible Man being nameless

I think that it is interesting how the narrator if Invisible Man remained nameless throughout the whole story. Everyone wants to be seen and heard. In this narrator's case it did not happen to often. The people in the story recognized that he was present, but never gave him a chance. Throughout the story it was like a roller coaster, the narrator had so many ups and downs. He would rise by giving these remarkable speeches, since that would be his highest strength, people would listen, but nothing would be done after the fact that he spoke. He would always present important views and points but never went after them. He reminded me of a Martin Luther King Jr. because he was a man who was not afraid to speak his mind. The only difference is that Martin actually went after his dream, it was eventually achieved. The narrator does not really do anything to go after his dream, it is something there. I feel even maybe the author of the book made it unattainable so that the narrator would remain nameless and invisible. Everyone in literature and society wants to be heard and seen. No one wants to be invisible, everyone wants that attention so other people can see them. In Invisible Man, the narrator's name is never given, not even hinted at. I believe that the author wanted the narrator to remain nameless because he wanted to tell society that this is what happens when you do not go out and strive for the goals that you set. These goals must be achieved at all cost. In today's society I feel there is a great mix of the go getters in society and the lazy people who do not strive for anything. I think that there are unfortunately more lazy people. This has to do with the Invisible Man because he did strive for certain goals but did not capitalize on them. Hence he was nameless throughout the book because he never accomplished anything significant. I think that I sometimes can appear as invisible because I do not reach for some of my goals that I set and become lazy, but I still have a name and I do complete the more important goals in life. This is why I believe the narrator was nameless throughout the novel.