Paper代寫范文-Cultural relativism

　　下面為大家整理一篇優秀的Paper代寫范文--Cultural relativism，文章講述CR聲稱世界上沒有任何單一且客觀上正確的道德教義或行為。道德與由不同社會的經濟，社會和環境因素決定的文化有關。CR的論據首先基于人類學觀察中的各種文化事實。這個研究領域告訴我們，不同的社會有不同的道德承諾。

Paper代寫范文

　　Cultural relativism

　　CR claims that there is not any single and objectively right moral doctrines or conduct in the world.Morality is related to cultures determined by economic,social,and environmental factors of different societies.CR’s arguments are firstly based on a variety of cultural facts from Anthropological observations.This field of study tells us that different societies have different moral commitments.For instance,while people in one country eat the corps of the dead father,people in another country consider it to be horrible or ugly and burn or bury their ancestor’s corps instead.For another instance,while it is the right for women in the non-Islamic countries do decide their dressing,Islamic women are obligated to cover the body and face will thick veils.Otherwise,the latter would be condemned and punished.That’s to say,what is thought to be cultural and morally right in this society would be regarded as culturally and morally wrong in another society.There do exist the distinction between moral rightness and moral wrongness in every single society.However,people moral conceptions are not objectively right,since people in another society would hold different and even conflicting standpoint when it come to the same moral issue,and they believe strongly and genuinely that their standpoints or conducts are right.

　　However,CR is problematic.First of all,it confuses descriptiveness with prescriptiveness,which leads to the confusion culture with morality.There do exist a variety of culture in different societies.However,many cultures are based on people’s preference and aesthetical experiences,and it is no big deal to see such varieties in our world.Sometimes,many political leaders even say the variety of culture is a good thing and necessitate cultural exchanges rather than cultural Imperialism.However,when it comes to the issue of morality,it’s much more complex.Since morality is a normative study.The fact that different people have different people moral commitments and conception does not necessarily mean that they should continue their commitment or holding their conceptions.What morality deals with is people values and interest.If we agree that people around the world indeed similar interests and that conflicts among people are obviously found everyday,then it would be doubtlessly to conclude that there would be relatively right a way to resolve conflict of interests and value among people,and that is morality.

　　In addition,despite the variety of culture or morality around the world,there do exist some overlapping among them.For instance,Buddhism,Christianity,and Islam commonly reject murder and adultery.The fact that many religions have similar expressions in the manuscripts that“treating others as you would like to be treated as you would like to be treated”is another case to show the overlapping morality around the world.In other words,even in the descriptive sense,people do have some agreement over some issues.

　　What’s more,even assuming that people do have different moral conducts in different society,this does not mean that people have different moral conceptions.Granted that people mourn their ancestors in different way,they do have the same moral conception—filial piety.What differs is their way to interpret and practice this moral conception.Thus，people do all agree that filial piety is morally right and desirable.

　　Nonetheless,cultural relativism might claim that the claim that there exist an objective right moral conception or conduct might have disastrous results,since wars in the name of“real religion”in the seventeenth and eighteenth century had told us that to claim the existence of a real or objective thing or conception would result in blood and war.In contrast to cultural or moral objectivism,relativism is a doctrine of tolerance and peace.If we agree that people’s moral conceptions are relative,we would tolerate differences among us.No Crusade,no war,no invasion.

　　In my point of view,the above view seems to overestimate the influence of moral ideas on politic reality or international relationship.Truly,certain wars are in the name of morality.However,they are not driven by morality but economic factors or emperors personal ambition.Secondly,the fact that I believe some moral standpoints of view are objectively right and what I am holding are the ones does not necessarily mean that I am going to ruin the dissenters physically.I might claim that dissenters are morally wrong and provide my arguments,hoping dissenters be convinced.However,if they do not agree with me,I would tolerate they,if and only if their points of view would not trouble me.That’s to say,the true definition of tolerance lies in the fact that,even though I thing people are morally wrong objectively,I still get along well with them.