INTRODUCTION:
International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of
war or the law of armed conflict, is the legal framework applicable to
situations of armed conflict and occupation. As a set of rules and
principles it aims, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed
conflict.
Fundamental to IHL are the following two principles:
1. Persons who are not,
or are no longer, participating in hostilities must be protected; and
2. The right of parties
to an armed conflict to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited.
IHL is a part of public international law. Public
international law is a broad set of treaties, customary law, principles and
norms. The framework traditionally regulated relationships only between
States. It has evolved, however, to cover a broad range of actors. IHL is
notable in this regard, as it recognizes obligations for both States and
non-State armed groups that are parties to an armed conflict.
IHL regulates activity during armed conflict and situations of
occupation. It is distinct from, and applies irrespective of, the body of law
that regulates the recourse to armed force. This framework is known as
the jus ad bellum, and is enshrined in the UN Charter. It regulates
the conditions under which force may be used, namely in self-defense and
pursuant to UN Security Council authorization. Once there is an armed conflict
IHL applies to all the parties, whether or not a party was legally justified in
using force under jus ad bellum principles.
The balancing of humanity and military necessity is seen in the
foundational IHL norms of distinction and proportionality. Parties to an armed
conflict are required to distinguish, at all times, between civilians and
combatants and between civilian objects and military objects. Additionally, an
attack may not be launched if it is anticipated to cause incidental loss of
civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be
excessive in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Additional
IHL principles include the duty to take precautions to spare the civilian
population before and during an attack, the prohibition against infliction of
unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, and the prohibition of
indiscriminate attacks.
Classification of Armed Conflict:
IHL classifies armed conflicts as either international armed
conflict (IAC) or non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The proper
categorization of an armed conflict is necessary to determine which set of
rules apply to the conflict: those for an IAC (found mainly in the four Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocol I) or those for a NIAC (found mainly in
Article Three common to the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol
II). Situations of occupation are regulated by IHL, namely the Fourth Geneva
Convention and Additional Protocol I.
Whether or not an armed conflict is an IAC or a NIAC has significant
implications. For instance, prisoner of war (POW) status, as well as combatant
status, is found only in the rules applicable to IACs. The rules regulating the
conduct of hostilities, as well as humanitarian access and assistance, are more
detailed for IACs. All together the treaty rules applicable to IACs total close
to 600; those applicable to NIACs number less than 30. This dearth of guidance
can pose a challenge because the majority of contemporary conflicts are NIACs.
To address this, one can look to customary international law, which includes a
number of rules that have evolved to address both IAC and NIAC situations.
The definition of an IAC is found in Article
Two common to the four Geneva Conventions. It states that the rules of IAC
apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may
arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties.“ Thus, an IAC can
only be between two or more States.
In Article Three common to the four Geneva Conventions a
NIAC is defined in the negative, as “an armed conflict not of an
international character.” Thus, if a non-State armed group is a party to the
armed conflict, it will be categorized as a NIAC. This could be the case if,
for instance, a State is fighting an armed group, or if two non-State armed
groups are fighting each other. Common Article Three and customary
international law would regulate both scenarios. For Additional Protocol II to
apply, certain requirements must be satisfied. In the armed conflict, a State
must be on one side, fighting against an armed group. That State must have
signed Additional Protocol II for it to apply. Additionally, the non-State
armed group must be organized, under a responsible command, and exercising
control over part of the territory in such a manner that the group is able to
carry out military operations.
The use of the phrase “global war on terror” resulted
in some misunderstanding regarding the application of IHL to certain
situations. The “global war on terror” is a political phrase, not a legal term
of art. Thus, the “global war on terror” is not an armed conflict. The
appropriate way to analyze conflicts that fall under this umbrella is to look
at the conflict locations – Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. – and
assess each one in terms of whether or not it is an IAC or a NIAC, regulated by
the relevant framework.
There is some academic debate regarding cross-border NIACs, as
well as at what point a NIAC might become an IAC, or an IAC might become a
NIAC. These analyses are context and fact-dependent. Despite the theoretical
debate, practitioners can often work around them by relying on customary
international law to argue for protections owed to civilians.
KEY
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW INSTRUMENTS
Treaties and customary international law are the two main
sources of IHL rules and regulations. Treaties are agreements between States,
and those States that ratify a treaty are bound by its terms. Though a
non-State armed group cannot sign a treaty, IHL treaty rules like Common Article
Three and Additional Protocol II nonetheless apply to these actors.
Many IHL rules are now considered to reflect customary
international law as well. Customary international law consists of rules
derived from the consistent practice of States based on a belief that the law
requires them to act in that way. Such rules are binding on both states and
non-State armed groups. The International Committee of the Red Cross published a study and created a database on customary
international humanitarian law.
The key IHL treaties include the 1907 Hague Regulations, the
four Geneva Conventions, and their Additional Protocols.
·
1907 Hague Regulations (Convention (IV)
respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations
concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907)
·
Convention (III) relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949
Impacts on world:
Mitigates
suffering and the impact of armed conflict on people's lives:
Multilateral
agreements by States develop IHL to ensure that legal limits are in place. For
example, multilateral efforts have secured humanitarian agreements on nuclear
weapons, chemical weapons, landmines and the arms trade.These rules save lives.
Current
multilateral discussions on certain new weapons are essential to keep IHL up to
speed with rapid developments in technology.
Greater
State support for the implementation of and respect for IHL can help prevent
and minimize human suffering in armed conflict.
IHL
regulates and limits the methods and means of warfare:
Today's
armed conflicts involve large numbers of States in protracted regional
conflicts in many parts of the world – often working together in multilateral
coalitions and partnered operations.Multilateral military operations must
respect the rules which States have developed and committed themselves to -
under the Geneva Conventions and other components of IHL.
States
supporting parties to armed conflict can and should use their influence on the
conduct of hostilities to encourage greater respect for IHL. They can do this,
for example, by embedding humanitarian rules into their own and their partners'
policies on targeting military objectives, training soldiers and fighters and
detaining adversaries.
IHL
is principled and people-centered:
Under
the UN Charter, all people of the world and the sovereign equality of States
are given due consideration. This people-centered view is core to IHL, to
principled humanitarian action, and to impartial humanitarian organizations,
like the ICRC. Our work in reducing human suffering across all
conflict-affected communities is founded on the principles of humanity,
impartiality, neutrality and independence.
Multilateral
cooperation respecting these principles and rules – agreed to by all States –
is necessary for humanitarian action to be effective, so that civilians can
receive the support they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions.
A
RECENT report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has highlighted
how, over the past decade and a half, the number of “non-international armed
conflicts” around the world has not only increased, but also how there are
often more than just two parties involved in the hostilities. One of the main
pillars of the International Humanitarian Law developed by the ICRC lies in
making a distinction between civilians and combatants; the factors leading to
the violation of this principle form the basis of the new report. The findings
show how shifting alliances in such conflicts can endanger civilian status. The
first of its kind survey highlights that there isn’t really a challenge in
identifying civilians despite the apparently complex ground realities.
The
problem isn’t new; historically, developed invading nations have projected
themselves as respecting the distinction between non-combatants (or civilians)
and combatants. In actuality, this is far from the truth, with informal norms
leading to subjective moral judgements that label non-combatants as ‘innocent’
or ‘guilty’. The psycho-sociological aspects of conflict, such as the influence
of the groups involved, integration within the hierarchy etc can have an impact
on the culture of restraint adopted by the armed forces. This environment,
along with other factors such social, religious, or community ties, can lead to
state armed forces targeting civilians who are either unwittingly or
unwillingly contributing to the enemy’s war efforts. The report suggests that
talking to armed groups, combatants and civilians exerts positive influences on
all sides. It is important that IHL be made a part of local legal frameworks.
State armed forces should be trained to uphold IHL; with effective sanctions
imposed on those who fail to obey the humanitarian code. Meanwhile, there is a
need to specify all measures that will safeguard the rights of civilians as
part of a larger strategy.
Cultural
Relativism:
To
many thinkers, this observation "Different cultures have different moral
codes" has seemed to be the key to understanding morality. The idea of
universal truth in ethics, they say, is a myth. The customs of different
societies are all that exist. These customs cannot be said to be
"correct" or "incorrect," for that implies we have an
independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. But there
is no such independent standard; every standard is culture-bound. The great
pioneering sociologist William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, put the point like
this:
The
"right" way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been
handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to
verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not
outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the
folkways, whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and
therefore contain in themselves the authority of the ancestral ghosts. When we
come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis.
This
line of thought has probably persuaded more people to be skeptical about ethics
than any other single thing. Cultural Relativism, as it has been called,
challenges our ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral
truth. It says, in effect, that there is not such thing as universal truth in
ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover,
our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many.
As
we shall see, this basic idea is really a compound of several different
thoughts. It is important to separate the various elements of the theory
because, on analysis, some parts turn out to be correct, while others seem to
be mistaken. As a beginning, we may distinguish the following claims, all of
which have been made by cultural relativists:
“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; it is merely one among
many.
There
is no "universal truth" in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths
that hold for all peoples at all times.
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.
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.
Although
it may seem that these six propositions go naturally together, they are
independent of one another, in the sense that some of them might be false even
if others are true. In what follows, we will try to identify what is correct in
Cultural Relativism, but we will also be concerned to expose what is mistaken
about it.
The
Cultural Differences Argument:
Cultural
Relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems
quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by
subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze Cultural Relativism we
find that it is not so plausible as it first appears to be.
The
first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of Cultural Relativism there
is a certain form of argument. The strategy used by cultural
relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural
outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to
accept this reasoning:
The
Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed
it was right to eat the dead.
Therefore,
eating the dead is neither objectively fight nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
Or,
alternatively:
The
Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe
infanticide is immoral.
Therefore,
infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
Clearly,
these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea They are both special
cases of a more general argument, which says:
“Different
cultures have different moral codes.”
Therefore,
there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only
matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
We
may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is
persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it sound?
It
is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow from the
premise that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
false. The premise concerns what people believe. In some societies,
people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The
conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is
that this sort conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.
Consider
again the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Greeks believed it was
wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right. Does it follow,
from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the
matter? No, it does not follow; for it could be that the practice was
objectively right (or wrong) and that one or the other of them was simply
mistaken.
To
make the point clearer, consider a different matter In some societies, people
believe the earth is flat In other societies, such as our own, people believe
the earth is (roughly) spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that
people disagree, that there is no "objective truth" in
geography? Of course not; we would never draw such a conclusion because we
realize that, in their beliefs about the world, the members of some societies
might simply be wrong. There is no reason to think that if the world is round
everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is
moral truth everyone must know it. The fundamental mistake in the Cultural
Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion
about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree about it.
This
is a simple point of logic, and it is important not to misunderstand it. We are
not saying (not yet, anyway) that the conclusion of the argument is false. It
is still an open question whether the conclusion is true or false. The logical
point is just that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
This is important, because in order to determine whether the conclusion is
true, we need arguments in its support. Cultural Relativism proposes this argument,
but unfortunately the argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves
nothing.
The
Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously:
Even
if the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid, Cultural Relativism might
still be true. What would it be like if it were true?
In
the passage quoted above, William Graham Sumner summarizes the essence of
Cultural Relativism. He says that there is no measure of right and wrong other
than the standards of one's society: "The notion of right is in the
folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test
them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right."
Suppose
we took this seriously. What would be some of the consequences?
1. We
could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to
our own. This, of course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural
Relativism. We would have to stop condemning other societies merely because
they are "different:' So long as we concentrate on certain examples, such
as the funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians, this may seem to be a
sophisticated, enlightened attitude.
However,
we would also be stopped from criticizing other, less benign practices. Suppose
a society waged war on its neighbors for the purpose of taking slaves. Or suppose
a society was violently anti-Semitic and its leaders set out to destroy the
Jews. Cultural Relativism would preclude us from saying that either of these
practices was wrong. We would not even be able to say that a society tolerant
of Jews is better than the anti- Semitic society, for that would
imply some sort of transcultural standard of comparison. The failure
to condemn these practices does not seem enlightened; on the
contrary, slavery and anti-Semitism seem wrong wherever they occur. Nevertheless,
if we took Cultural Relativism seriously, we would have to regard these social
practices as also immune from criticism.
2. We
could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for
determining what is right and what is wrong: All one need do is ask whether the
action is in accordance with the code of one's society. Suppose in 1975, a
resident of South Africa was wondering whether his country's policy
of apartheid a rigidly racist system was morally correct. All he has to do
is ask whether this policy conformed to his society's moral code. If it did,
there would have been nothing to worry about, at least from a moral point of
view.
This
implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing because few of us think that
our society's code is perfect; we can think of ways it might be improved. Yet
Cultural Relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of
other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own. After all, if right
and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our own culture just
as much as for other cultures.
3. The
idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Usually, we think that at
least some social changes are for the better. (Although, of course, other
changes may be for the worse.) Throughout most of Western history the place of
women in society was narrowly circumscribed. They could not own property; they
could not vote or hold political office; and generally they were under the
almost absolute control of their husbands. Recently much of this has changed,
and most people think of it as progress.
If
Cultural Relativism is correct, can we legitimately think of this as progress?
Progress means replacing a way of doing things with a better way. But by what
standard do we judge the new ways as better? If the old ways were in accordance
with the social standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would say it
is a mistake to judge them by the standards of a different time. Eighteenth-century
society was, in effect, a different society from the one we have now. To say
that we have made progress implies a judgment that present-day society is
better, and that is just the sort of transcultural judgment that, according to
Cultural Relativism, is impermissible.
Our
idea of social reform will also have to be reconsidered. Reformers
such as Martin Luther King, Jr., have sought to change their societies for the
better. Within the constraints imposed by Cultural Relativism, there is one way
this might be done. If a society is not living up to its own ideals, the
reformer may be regarded as acting for the best: The ideals of the society are
the standard by which we judge his or her proposals as worthwhile. But the
"reformer" may not challenge the ideals themselves, for those ideals
are by definition correct. According to Cultural Relativism, then, the idea of
social reform makes sense only in this limited way.
These
three consequences of Cultural Relativism have led many thinkers to reject it as
implausible on its face. It does make sense, they say, to condemn some
practices, such as slavery and anti-Semitism, wherever they occur. It makes
sense to think that our own society has made some moral progress, while
admitting that it is still imperfect and in need of reform. Because Cultural
Relativism says that these judgments make no sense, the argument goes, it
cannot be right.
Cultural Relativism
Advantages and Disadvantages:
People
change. Cultures change. Humanity is constantly evolving, developing, and
adapting. When cultural relativism is implemented, then the ability to evolve
and adapt is encouraged because the definitions of ethical and moral “right”
and “wrong” can change as people change. Cultural relativism eliminates the
rigidity that societies have in place regarding ethics, conduct, and reasoning.
It
also means that there are no actual definitions that are in place for a
society. Cultural relativism promotes an individualistic perspective which
governs how a person acts, thinks, and responds. Each person can set their own
moralistic codes which they follow.
There
are additional cultural relativism advantages and disadvantages to consider
when looking at this theory. Here are some of the key points to consider.
What are the Advantages of Cultural Relativism?
1. It is a system which
promotes cooperation:
For the most part, humanity is strong because of the differences we all have.
Every individual has a different perspective that is based on their upbringing,
experiences, and personal thoughts. By embracing the many differences we have,
the cooperation creates the potential for a stronger society. Each individual
definition of success allows us to pursue stronger bonds with one another and
potentially achieve more because there are no limitations from a group level
and what can or cannot be accomplished.
2. It creates a society where
equality is possible:
In any society, people
rise by climbing on top of other people. It is a socially acceptable way of
creating discrimination. We see this today in the wage gap that women face, the
educational opportunities that minority groups face, and the violence we see
because of political oppression. Cultural relativism allows the individual to
define their moral code without defining the moral code of others. Each person
is separate in such a society. That separation creates equality because each
person can set their own definition of success.
3. People can pursue a genuine
interest:
In the modern society,
people are funneled toward certain career options because of their
circumstances. If you can’t afford to go to college, then you pursue a
vocational career or some sort of entrepreneurship instead of a career that
requires a graduate degree. If you can’t afford to buy a house, you go rent an
apartment. In cultural relativism, you get to pursue your own interests without
restriction. You set the definitions of what you can have and what you cannot
have. When implemented successfully, each person would get to focus on their
strengths instead of their weaknesses.
4. Respect is encouraged in a
system of cultural relativism:
People come from
different cultures. They have different ideas. They pursue different
definitions of success. Because such a system promotes the individual’s
definition instead of a group definition, a society can evolve because there is
a natural level of respect built into the process. Each person is naturally
given the right to pursue life through their own specific perspective and then
learn from their experiences in a way that works best for them.
5. It preserves human cultures:
Humanity is a very
diverse set of thoughts, traditions, ideas, and practices. Many times, the
traditions of humanity are set aside so that a group set of standards can be
appeased. Native and First Nations tribes in North America did this by signing
treaties which would help them to preserve some lands, but limit their rights
by being subject to a new governmental authority. They were forced to trade
some of their culture. Under the theory of cultural relativism, such a trade
would not be necessary. It wouldn’t even be a consideration.
6. Cultural relativism creates
a society without judgment:
We are so trained to
judge others in today’s world that we don’t even give it a second thought. Looking
at someone and saying, “Glad that isn’t me,” is a judgment. Under the theory of
cultural relativism, judgment goes away. The only person that judges you is
yourself. People who might disagree with you are able to set their own codes
and standards for their own individualistic bubble. Instead of worrying about
others, you only worry about yourself.
7. Moral relativism can be
excluded from cultural relativism:
Each culture can be
treated as an individual under the theory of cultural relativism. This means
the moral codes of a culture can be defined and an expectation implemented that
people follow it. Although other cultures may not setup such a restriction, and
others might say such a restriction isn’t a true form of cultural relativism,
people in such a system can do what makes the most sense for them. You’re
focusing on the customs of a culture, not the morality that is imposed upon
those customs.
8. We can create personal moral
codes based on societal standards with ease:
To determine if a decision
would be “right” or “wrong,” cultural relativism allows individuals to consult
with the standards of their society or culture. It is a simple test to
determine the course that a person should take in such a circumstance. By
consulting with the moral code of the culture, one question must be asked: does
the action conform to the cultural moral code? If it does, then the action is
permitted. Although this process can allow for disturbing results, most
cultures are based on inclusion instead of exclusion. It is only in structures
where apartheid, segregation, or purging where disturbing outcomes are
typically present.
9. It stops cultural
conditioning:
People tend to adapt
their attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs to the people they are with on a regular
basis. This is cultural conditioning and it prevents people from having an
individualistic perspective. Cultural relativism stops this.
What Are the Disadvantages of Cultural
Relativism?
1. It creates a system that is
fueled by personal bias:
Every society has a
certain natural bias to it because of how humanity operates. People tend to
prefer to be with others who have similar thoughts and feelings, so they
segregate themselves into neighborhoods, communities, and social groups that
share specific perspectives. When people are given the power to define their
own moral code, then they will do so based on their own personal bias. There is
no longer a group perspective. People follow their own code at the expense of
others.
2. It would create chaos:
People who can follow
their own moral code because there is no “wrong” or “right” would be allowed to
pursue any life they preferred under the theory of cultural relativism. If
you’re upset with your neighbor, then you can kill that person without consequence
if your moral code allows for murder. Instead of purchasing something, you
could steal it if you see stealing as “right” to do. There is no real way to
protect people in such a society, so each person becomes responsible to protect
themselves. It creates a system that is Darwinian in practicality, where only
the strongest can survive.
3. It is an idea that is based
on the perfection of humanity:
Many people strive to
do good every day. Most want to see everyone have the chance to pursue
happiness in some way. That is why the idea of cultural relativism often seems
to be inviting. The only problem is that people are not perfect. We can be
forgetful. We can lie. We can become aggressive when a driver cuts you off
while driving and puts your family at risk. Without a group moral code in place
to govern decisions, anything could happen when we experience these moments of
imperfection.
4. It could promote a lack of
diversity:
Cultural relativism
promotes an individualistic point of view, so although it seems to promote
diversity, it actually removes it from a society. Cultural relativism would
allow slavery to return to the US South. It would allow men to exclude women
from voting once again. It would stop employers from paying someone a fair wage
– or even paying them a wage at all. The only standards that are in place are
those which are set by the individual involved, which means everyone is
pursuing their own position of strength. We cannot create diversity when the
emphasis of a society is individualistic gain that can come at the expense of
others.
5. It draws people away from
one another:
Although cultural
relativism can promote people coming together to share their strengths, it can
also encourage people to draw apart from one another. C.S. Lewis, in his
description of Hell from The Screwtape Letters, envisions
a place where people are constantly going away from each other to avoid the
demons that each person has. Because each person is uncertain of what codes and
standards another is following, the natural inclination for self-preservation
causes people to draw away. You might develop a close-knit community at first,
but as Lewis describes, each demon causes people to back away from one another
instead of coming closer.
6. It could limit moral progress:
When we look at the
idea of moral progress, we think of becoming more inclusionary instead of
exclusionary. This inclusion is reflected in the laws and customs of the
culture. The current debate on the transgender bathroom laws in North Carolina
and Texas is a good example of this. In cultural relativism, everyone would be
able to use their bathroom of choice OR a culture could state that everyone
must use a specific bathroom without exception and there would be complete
agreement in either choice. Within the society, either choice would be seen as
moral progress, but in reality, it could hold people back.
7. It could limit humanity’s
progress:
We often think of the
concept of cultural relativism as progression, but it isn’t necessarily that
way. When you remove the ability to judge one standard from another, then the
comparative process of placing a current society or culture against a past one is
removed as well. No definition of success can be implemented because each is
successful in its own way. We might consider the ability for women to vote as
the “right” thing to do today, but in past societies, not allowing women to
vote was also “right” from a cultural standpoint. Because both are “right,”
there’s no way to judge progress.
8. Cultural relativism can turn
perceptions into truths:
It’s a dark night and
it is warm outside. An African-American teen is walking down an alley wearing a
hoodie and the hood is up. His hands are jammed into his pockets and there is a
bulge in one of them. In this scenario, some people may automatically assume
that the teen is up to “no good.” The bulge might even be a weapon under that
assumption. In the world of cultural relativism, that bias becomes a truth that
can be acted upon. It doesn’t matter if the bulge is a gun or a package of
Skittles. The decision to act becomes a righteous one because of the individual
truth that the culture allowed through the bias it perpetrates.
The cultural relativism advantages and disadvantages which
are discussed are based on the theoretical implementation of such a system.
Originally proposed by Franz Boas in 1887, it is an idea that has never been
implemented on a large scale. Moral standards make sense in a person’s culture.
By creating individualized cultures, on singular or larger scales, it does
become easier to keep and embrace the traditions that humanity has developed
over the millennia.
0 Comments