The existence of Multiculturalism is something that we can´t deny nor their consistent and many ways of conceiving life. With this point, we can argue that if each one uses morality in each of our cultural backgrounds, all their customs and traditions would be respectable.
However, when I was reading the stimulus I instantly began judging Kamayurá´s tribal practices and I disagreed because for me it is not correct to take someone´s life just because of a disability. This anger sentiment invaded me and I told myself that I need to question the following: Should we respect and allow certain foreign cultural practices? If we talk about culture at some point we will address the part about morality. Before starting, I would like to comment on some aspects of the human moral dimension.
We as human beings, are not originally determined to follow a set of rules or laws and we are involved in the society, it requires inventing our life, a culture of which we will establish a set of norms and moral values. Therefore, culture can be defined as: “The integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations”
The aforementioned implies the recognition that man has as one of its characteristics, the morality, that is, every being human has a moral structure that includes responsibility, freedom and justification. Diversity, then, appears in the contents of this moral structure. Both the history as the evident cultural plurality verify it. Therefore, each one of us have a biological moral structure, but what is included within this it will vary according to the culture in which each one is socialized.
127 our experts are availableright now
Conflict arises when we maintain that moral matters are subjective. Of being this way, the variety of languages and moral perspectives would make all cultural behavior, respectable. Nevertheless, we are conscious that there are some practices or rituals that are not admissible in any part of the world, many of which are justified by the culture or tradition of which they are part from. As a result, we ask ourselves about the morality of certain customs or norms and also about the respect for those cultures that permit this type of behavior.
Consequently, the dilemma can be limited to two positions which in this case will be cultural relativism and universalism. On the one hand, cultural relativism is presented. Cultural relativism defends a global respect for all cultures by considering that none of them can be judged or analyzed from an external basis that meets the criteria of others. The defenders of relativism deny the existence of universal criteria and consequently oppose any comparison between cultures.
Cultural relativists consider that every tradition is respectable regardless of the original culture. In brief, they accuse all those who intend to build a universal ethic, of inevitably adopting an ethnocentric position. We as humans tend to think that we are in possession of reason and truth. I consider that this is a subjective behavior that can lead to narrow-mindedness and even intolerance to others in society, especially when we think that something is “different” to our cultural background. When it happens collectively we talk about ethnocentrism.
“Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of one’s own culture – especially regarding language, behavior, customs, and religion”
However, an interesting question to ask is: Can we corroborate unfair behavior simply because it is allowed by a culture? “Relativism has been criticized for a possible “naturalistic fallacy,” consisting of “deducing the moral validity of any custom or tradition by the mere fact of being approved by a particular culture” . Thus, this relativism justifies any ethical norm for being accepted by a cultural majority, without attending to possible unfair consequences to the damage of human dignity.
“If all ethics is justified by being part of a cultural idea, error and evil do not take place, (…) the existence of some of its members who suffer or are oppressed by current norms is not contemplated.”
The relativistic position is aggravated when it results in an ethical relativism that, in turn, leads to a skeptic point of view. In this case, it is predictable to question: “Where do you judge crimes against humanity, if you deny any universal reason?” And although the goal of this idea is nothing more than promoting approaches of respect and tolerance for multiculturalism, is like a paradox because the ethical relativism can damage the ideal of tolerance itself.
On the other hand, the other way to address this topic is universalism. The main argument of universalism stems from human nature. Because we are born as a human being, we are automatically entitled to these rights which are inalienable to humanity. The universalist position, which aspires to address the conflict with relativism but also the problem of what an ethic seeks, affirms that relativism leaves us unarmed, without criteria, because according to relativism everything is worth depending on the point of view of each culture. In addition, they are aware that if they judge something foreign to their culture, they will be labeled as ethnocentric persons.
However, in such “traditional” cultures, humanity was not the basis of these rights but rather a set of criteria or standards. In Islam for example, the concept is based on duties that one owes to god and the community. From this we can see that human rights can vary in form and interpretation while still maintaining its core meaning of retaining human dignity.
Even a characteristic of universalism is the fact that it embraces cultural diversity. Human rights is meant for all, no matter where you are born, no matter your race, and no matter your community as long as you are human. We are born equal and require equal rights that are inherent to humanity. Nothing should be able to take that away from us. To be free from hunger, to have a roof over our heads, to be free from oppression, violence and discrimination, to be entitled to health care, education, and therefore opportunities. We have the right to live and right to make what we want of it. Human rights is the future.
Cultural relativists argue against the universalism of human rights by claiming that it is a foreign idea to many non-western countries where culture and tradition come before humanity. They believe human rights are only applicable and valid to some cultures and not all, due to different norms and ideas in different cultures. However, this view poses a threat to the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights which could be helpful in eradicating breaches of human rights around the world today. As mentioned before, for international law to be implemented, the global acceptance of human rights is essential.
Cultural relativists argue that human rights are a western ideology is based on the fact that the idea itself originated from western socio-cultural contexts. Although this may be true, it is incoherent with the applicability of human rights in a culturally diverse world. Also, this idea can be contradicted by looking at the forty-eight different countries, which some of them were even culturally different and still they voted in favor of the declaration of the human rights. Even in current times where there is a significantly higher number of members within the United Nations, the overlapping agreement on human rights and universalism proves its recognition into every culture, religion or civilization.
