Monday, July 20, 2020

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong “Relativism, the id?? th?t truth i? a hi?t?ri??ll? ??nditi?n?d n?ti?n th?t does n?t transcend cultural b?und?ri??, has ?xi?t?d ?in?? the Greek ?r?, ??m? 2400 ???r? ago. R?l?tivi?m ??nt?nd? that ?ll truth i? r?l?tiv? ?x???t f?r th? claim th?t “truth is relative”. Dr. Edw?rd Younkins LET’S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING: WHAT IS CULTURE?M??t tim??, when th? ?u??ti?n ‘what is culture’ is ??k?d, it’s almost certainly diffi?ult t? ?n?w?r because w? probably have an idea wh?t culture is all about, but we are n?t just ?bl? to put it in exact w?rd?.So let’s g? like thi?W? ?ll kn?w that man is a ???i?l ?r??tur?, coming together to form communities in ?rd?r t? ?urviv?; even ?? far back ?s the Homo ???i?n? whi?h was n??rl? 250,000 ???r? ?g?.As a result of living t?g?th?r, they f?rm common habits ?nd b?h?vi?r? ranging fr?m specific m?th?d? of ?hildr??ring t? ?r?f?rr?d t??hni?u?? to obtain f??d.For example, in m?d?rn-d?? P?ri?, many ????l? ?h?? daily ?t ?utd??r m?rk?t? t? ?i?k u? wh?t they n??d for th?ir ?v?ning m??l, buying cheese, m??t, ?nd v?g?t?bl?? fr?m diff?r?nt ????i?lt? ?t?ll?.And in Canada, m?j?rit? of ????l? shop ?n?? a week ?t ?u??rm?rk?t?, filling l?rg? ??rt? t? th? brim. Every human b?h?vi?r, from shopping t? m?rri?g?, t? the ?x?r???i?n ?f f??ling?; i? l??rn?d.In Canada, people t?nd to vi?w marriage as a choice b?tw??n tw? ????l?, based ?n mutual f??ling? ?f love.In some ?th?r nations and in ?th?r tim??, m?rri?g?? h?v? been arranged thr?ugh ?n intri??t? process of int?rvi?w? ?nd n?g?ti?ti?n? b?tw??n ?ntir? families, or in some ?????, through a dir??t ???t?m such ?? a “m?il ?rd?r bride.”To ??m??n? raised in Winnipeg for instance, th? marriage ?u?t?m? of a f?mil? fr?m Africa m?? seem strange, or ?v?n wr?ng.C?nv?r??l?, ??m??n? fr?m a traditional K?lk?t? f?mil? might b? perplexed with the id?? of r?m?nti? l?v? ?? th? foundation f?r the lif?l?ng ??mmitm?nt ?f m?rri?g?.In ?th?r words, th? way in whi?h people vi?w m?rri?g? d???nd? largely ?n wh?t they were t?ught. R?l?nd Barthes di?d?infull? r?f?rr?d to thi? ?? “th? h??t? ?t??king up” ?f a “m?r? mechanical ?iviliz?ti?n”.B?h?vi?r b???d on learned ?u?t?m? is n?t a bad thing. Being familiar with unwritt?n rul?? h?l?? people f??l ???ur? and “n?rm?l.”M??t ????l? w?nt t? liv? th?ir d?il? liv?? ??nfid?nt th?t th?ir behaviors will n?t b? ?h?ll?ng?d ?r disrupted. But ?v?n ?n ??ti?n ?? ???mingl? ?im?l? as commuting t? w?rk evidences a gr??t d??l of ?ultur?l diversities.Take the ???? ?f going t? w?rk on ?ubli? tr?n???rt?ti?n. Whether commuting in N?w York, Dublin, Cairo, Mumb?i, or V?n??uv?r, some behaviors will b? the ??m? in ?ll l???ti?n?, but ?ignifi??nt differences exists b?tw??n ?ultur??.T??i??ll?, a ?????ng?r in New York w?uld find a marked bu? stop ?r ?t?ti?n, wait f?r th? bu? or train, pay ?n ?g?nt b?f?r? ?r ?ft?r boarding, ?nd ?ui?tl? take a ???t if ?n? i? ?v?il?bl?.But wh?n b??rding a bus in Cairo, ?????ng?r? might h?v? to run, b???u?? bu??? th?r? often do not ??m ? t? a full ?t?? t? t?k? ?n patrons.Dublin bu? rid?r? would b? ?x???t?d t? ?xt?nd ?n ?rm to indicate th?t th?? w?nt the bu? to stop f?r th?m.And when b??rding a ??mmut?r tr?in in Mumb?i, ?????ng?r? must ??u??z? into ?v?r?tuff?d cars ?mid a l?t ?f pushing and shoving ?n the crowded platforms. Th?t kind ?f behavior would b? considered th? h?ight ?f rud?n??? in C?n?d? or th? U.S, but in Mumbai it r?fl??t? the daily ?h?ll?ng?? ?f g?tting around on a train ???t?m th?t i? grossly over utilized.In thi? example ?f ??mmuting, ?ultur? consists ?f th?ught? (?x???t?ti?n? ?b?ut ??r??n?l space, f?r example) ?nd t?ngibl? thing? (bus ?t???, tr?in?, ?nd ???ting ?????it?).M?t?ri?l ?ultur? r?f?r? to th? objects ?r belongings ?f a group of people. Metro passes ?nd bu? t?k?n? ?r? ??rt ?f m?t?ri?l culture, ?? ?r? automobiles, ?t?r??, ?nd th? ?h??i??l ?tru?tur?? where ????l? w?r?hi?.Nonmaterial culture, in contrast, ??n?i?t? ?f th? id???, ?ttitud??, ?nd b?li?f? of a ???i?t?. Material ?nd nonmaterial ????? t? of culture ?r? link?d, and ?h??i??l ?bj??t? often ??mb?liz? cultural ideas.A m?tr? ???? i? a m?t?ri?l ?bj??t, but it r??r???nt? a form ?f n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?, n?m?l?; ???it?li?m, ?nd th? acceptance of ???ing for transportation. Cl?thing, h?ir?t?l??, ?nd j?w?ll?r? ?r? part ?f m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? ???r??ri?t?n??? ?f wearing ??rt?in clothing f?r ????ifi? events reflects nonmaterial culture. A ??h??l building b?l?ng? to m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? t???hing m?th?d? ?nd ?du??ti?n?l ?t?nd?rd? are ??rt ?f ?du??ti?n’? n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?.These m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? of ?ultur? ??n v?r? ?ubtl? from r?gi?n to r?gi?n.A? ????l? tr?v?l f?rth?r away from home, m?ving from diff?r?nt regions to ?ntir?l? diff?r?nt ??rt? of th? world, ??rt?in m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? ?f culture become dr?m?ti??ll? unf?mili?r.Wh?t happens wh?n w? ?n??unt?r different ?ultur???A? w? int?r??t with ?ultur?? ?th?r than our ?wn, w? become more ?w?r? ?f th? differences and commonalities b?tw??n ?th?r w?rld? and our own.How d? we then judge these other diff?r?nt cultures? What becomes our justification for accepting theirs?MoralityM?r?lit? is th? ?u?lit? ?f b?ing in accord with standards of right ?r g??d ??ndu?t or a system ?f id??? th?t fall int? those ??m? categories. We often h??r w?rd? ?b?ut r?ligi?u? m?r?lit? ?r the ?hr??? Chri?ti?n m?r?lit? in ???i?t?. Items th?t f?ll int? th? m?r?ll? ??und ??t?g?r? are ?u?liti?? lik? g??d, g??dn???, rightn???, virtu?, ?nd right??u?n???.Wh?n talking about a m?r?l quality involving a course ?f ??ti?n, w? think ?f ?thi??. T? d?fin? m?r?lit?, a ??r??n will use th? rul?? or habits with r?g?rd to right ?nd wrong th?t he ?r she f?ll?w?.It is a ??m?l?x ???t?m ?f g?n?r?l ?rin?i?l?? and particular judgm?nt? b???d on ?ultur?l, r?ligi?u?, ?nd ?hil????hi??l ??n???t? and b?li?f?. Cultur?? and ?r groups r?gul?t? and g?n?r?liz? th??? ??n???t?, thus r?gul?ting behavior.Wh?n ??m??n? conforms t? th? codification, ??u ??n?id?r this ??r??n t? b? m?r?l.And yet , th? notion ?f h?w w? ?ught t? b?h?v? ?nd the r??lit? ?f h?w we d? b?h?v? ?r? varied ?nd r??l morality b?h?v?? in ????rd?n?? with ?n?? ??r???ti?n ?f m?r?lit?. Oft?n, d??trin?? ?r m?r?l duti?? th?t support the quality of an ??ti?n whi?h r?nd?r? it g??d, i? moral.And so a ???t?m ?f standards used t? ?r?du?? honest, d???nt, and ?thi??l r??ult? ?r? ??n?id?r?d m?r?l.Cultural ?b??luti?mMoral or cultural absolutism asserts th?t th?r? ?r? ??rt?in univ?r??l m?r?l principles by which ?ll ????l??’ actions m?? b? judg?d. It i? a form ?f deontology.The challenge with m?r?l absolutism, however, is th?t there will ?lw??? b? ?tr?ng di??gr??m?nt? ?b?ut whi?h moral ?rin?i?l?? are ??rr??t ?nd whi?h ?r? incorrect.F?r ?x?m?l?, m??t ????l? ?r?und the w?rld probably accept th? idea th?t w? ?h?uld tr??t ?th?r? ?? w? wi?h to b? treated ?ur??lv??. But b???nd th?t, ????l? fr?m diff?r?nt countries lik?l? h?ld varying vi?w? about ?v?r?thing fr?m th? m?r?lit? ?f ?b?rti?n ?nd capital ?uni?hm?nt t? n???ti?m ?nd brib?r?.M?r?l ?b??luti?m ??ntr??t? with m?r?l r?l?tivi?m, whi?h d?ni?? th?t th?r? ?r? ?b??lut? m?r?l v?lu??. It also diff?r? fr?m m?r?l pluralism, whi?h urg?? tolerance ?f ?th?r?’ m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? with?ut concluding th?t ?ll vi?w? are equally valid.S?, while m?r?l ?b??luti?m d??l?r?? a univ?r??l ??t ?f m?r?l v?lu??, in reality, m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? v?r? gr??tl? ?m?ng n?ti?n?, ?ultur??, and r?ligi?n?.CULTURAL RELATIVISM“If anyone, no matter wh?, w?r? giv?n the opportunity of ?h???ing from ?m?ng?t all the nations in th? world th? set ?f b?li?f? whi?h he th?ught b??t, h? w?uld in?vit?bl? ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n? ?f th?ir relative merits choose th?t of his ?wn ??untr?. Everyone without exception believes his ?wn native ?u?t?m?, ?nd the r?ligi?n h? w?? br?ught u? in, to be th? b??t”. Herodotus, The Hi?t?ri??W? h?v? almost extensively t?lk?d ?b?ut ?ultur? and h?w it v?ri?? ?v?r ?????.The m?r? farther w? tr?v?l fr?m wh?r? w? call h?m?, the m?r? th??? cultures becomes ?li?n? to us .S? philosophers’ ??k?d a ?u??ti?n:  If a ?ultur? fr?m far ?w?? ??ntr?di?t? ?ur?, d??? it make it wr?ng?Thi? ?u??ti?n g?v? birth t? cultural relativism.Cultur?l moral r?l?tivi?m i? th? th??r? th?t m?r?l judgm?nt? ?r truths ?r? r?l?tiv? to cultures, in ?th?r w?rd?, ?v?r? ?ultur? i? right.Consequently, wh?t is right in one society m?? b? wr?ng in ?n?th?r ?nd vi?? versa. You could think ?f culture as nation; ???i?t?; gr?u?, sub-culture, ?t?.This i? ?n?th?r th??r? with ancient r??t?. Herodotus, the f?th?r of hi?t?r?, d???rib?? th? Gr??k? ?n??unt?r with th? Callatians who ?t? their d??d r?l?tiv??.N?tur?ll?, th? Gr??k? found this ?r??ti?? r?v?lting. But th? Callatians w?r? ??u?ll? r???ll?d b? the Gr??k ?r??ti?? ?f ?r?m?ti?n ??u?ing Herodotus t? ??n?lud? th?t ethics i? culturally relative.Th? world lit?r?tur?: diff?r?nt ?ultur?? h?v? diff?r?nt m?r?l ??d??, ?n insight ??nfirm?d by th? ?vid?n?? of cultural diff?r?n???. Th? Incas practiced hum?n sacrifice, E?kim?? ?h?r?d th?ir wiv?? with st rangers ?nd killed newborns, Japanese samurai tri?d ?ut hi? n?w ?w?rd ?n an inn???nt ?????r-b?, Europeans ?n?l?v?d masses of Africans, and female ?ir?um?i?i?n i? ??rf?rm?d t?d?? in parts of North Afri??.D?riu?, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued b? the v?ri?t? ?f ?ultur?? h? met in hi? travels. H? h?d f?und, for ?x?m?l?, th?t th? C?ll?ti?n?, wh? lived in India, ate th? b?di?? ?f th?ir d??d f?th?r?. The Greeks, ?f ??ur??, did n?t do th?t th? Gr??k? ?r??ti??d cremation ?nd regarded th? funeral ??r? ?? the n?tur?l ?nd fitting w?? t? dispose ?f th? d??d. D?riu? thought th?t a sophisticated ?utl??k ?h?uld appreciate the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n cultures. On? d??, t? t???h thi? l????n, h? ?umm?n?d some Gr??k? wh? happened t? b? ?t hi? court and ??k?d wh?t it would t?k? f?r them to eat th? b?di?? ?f their d??d fathers. They w?r? ?h??k?d, ?? Darius knew they would b?, and replied that n? ?m?unt of money ??uld persuade th?m to d? such a thing. Then Darius ??ll?d in some C?ll?ti?n? and, whil ? the Gr??k? li?t?n?d, ??k?d them wh?t it w?uld t?k? f?r th?m t? burn th?ir d??d fathers’ b?di??. The C?ll?ti?n? w?r? h?rrifi?d and told D?riu? not t? ????k ?f such thing?T? a l?t of ????l?, th? idea “Different ?ultur?? h?v? different moral ??d??” w?uld b? the perfect w?? t? und?r?t?nd m?r?lit?. The idea is th?t th?r? ?r? no universal m?r?l truths; the ?u?t?m? ?f different societies are ?ll th?t exist.T? call a ?u?t?m “correct” ?r “in??rr??t” would imply th?t we can judg? th?t ?u?t?m by ??m? ind???nd?nt ?t?nd?rd ?f right ?nd wr?ng. But n? such ?t?nd?rd ?xi?t?; ?v?r? ?t?nd?rd is culture-bound. The ???i?l?gi?t Willi?m Gr?h?m Sumn?r ?ut it lik? thi?:Th? “right” w?? i? th? way whi?h th? ancestors u??d and whi?h h?? b??n h?nd?d down. Th? notion of right i? in th? folkways. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt origin, ?nd br?ught t? t??t th?m. In the f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r is, is right. This i? because they are tr?diti?n?l, ?nd th?r?f?r? ??nt?in in themselves th? auth ority ?f th? ?n???tr?l gh??t?. Wh?n w? come t? th? f?lkw??? we ?r? ?t th? ?nd ?f our ?n?l??i?.This lin? ?f th?ught, m?r? than ?n? other, has ??u??d people t? be ????ti??l ?b?ut ?thi??. Cultur?l Relativism says, in ?ff??t, that there i? n? such thing ?? univ?r??l truth?; th?r? ?r? ?nl? the various ?ultur?l ??d??, ?nd n?thing m?r?. Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m ?h?ll?ng?? ?ur belief in th? objectivity ?nd universality ?f moral truth.“The notion ?f right i? in th? f?lkw???. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt ?rigin, and br?ught t? t??t th?m. In th? f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r i?, is right”.   William GrahamTh? following claims have all been made by cultural r?l?tivi?t?:Diff?r?nt societies h?v? diff?r?nt moral ??d??.The moral ??d? ?f a ???i?t? determines wh?t i? right within th?t society; that i?, if the moral ??d? of a ???i?t? ???? that a ??rt?in action i? right, th?n that ??ti?n i? right, ?t least within th?t ???i?t?.Th?r? i? n? ?bj??tiv? ?t?nd?rd th?t can be used t? judg? ?n? ???i?t?’? ??d ? ?? b?tt?r than ?n?th?r’?. Th?r? are no moral truths that h?ld for ?ll people ?t all tim??.Th? m?r?l code of ?ur own society h?? no special ?t?tu?; it i? but ?n? among m?n?.It is arrogant f?r u? to judge ?th?r cultures. W? ?h?uld always b? tolerant ?f them.Th??? five ?r????iti?n? may seem t? g? together, but th?? ?r? ind???nd?nt ?f ?n? another, meaning th?t some ?f them m?? be tru? even while ?th?r? ?r? false. Indeed, tw? ?f th? ?r????iti?n? ?????r to b? inconsistent with ???h ?th?r.Th? ????nd ???? th?t right ?nd wr?ng ?r? d?t?rmin?d b? th? n?rm? of a society; th? fifth ???? that ?n? ?h?uld ?lw??? b? tolerant of ?th?r ?ultur??.But wh?t if the n?rm? ?f ?n?’? ???i?t? f?v?ur int?l?r?n???For ?x?m?l?, when th? Nazi ?rm? inv?d?d P?l?nd ?n S??t?mb?r 1, 1939, thus b?ginning World W?r II, thi? w?? an int?l?r?nt action of th? first order.But what if it ??nf?rm?d t? N?zi ideals? A ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, it ???m?, ??nn?t ?riti?iz? the Nazis f?r b?ing int?l?r?nt, if ?ll they’re doing i? fol lowing th?ir ?wn moral ??d?.Giv?n that cultural relativists take ?rid? in th?ir t?l?r?n??, it would b? ironic if th?ir theory ??tu?ll? ?u???rt?d th? int?l?r?n?? ?f w?rlik? ???i?ti??.H?w?v?r, their th??r? n??d n?t do th?t.Pr???rl? understood, Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m holds th?t the n?rm? ?f a ?ultur? r?ign ?u?r?m? within the b?und? of th? culture it??lf.Thu?, once th? German ??ldi?r? ?nt?r?d P?l?nd, th?? became b?und by th? n?rm? ?f Polish ???i?t? n?rm? th?t ?bvi?u?l? ?x?lud?d th? mass slaughter ?f inn???nt Poles. “When in R?m?,” the old ???ing g???, “d? ?? the R?m?n? do.” Cultur?l relativists agree.Cultur?l relativism i? b???d on tw? b??i? ideas or thesis:1.  Th? div?r?it? idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l beliefs, ?r??ti???, ?nd v?lu?? are diverse ?r v?r? fr?m one ?ultur? t? another; and2.  Th? dependency idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l ?blig?ti?n? d???nd? u??n ?ultur??, since th?? ?r? th? fin?l judg?? ?f m?r?l truth. In short, cultural relativism im?li?? th?t n? cultural v?lu?? h?v? ?n? ?bj??tiv?, univ?r??l v?lidit?, ?nd it would b? ?rr?g?nt f?r one ?ultur? t? m?k? moral judgm?nt? ?b?ut ?th?r ?ultur??.Th??? th??i? ?f div?r?it? is descriptiveThese th??i? of div?r?it? are d???ri?tiv? in that they describe th? w??? thing? ?r?. M?r?l b?li?f?, rules ?nd ?r??ti??? in actual fact, d???nd upon facades of ?ultur? lik? ???i?l, ??liti??l, religious, ?nd economic institutions.B? contrast the th??i? ?f d???nd?n?? i? prescriptive; it describes how things ?ught to b?.M?r?lit? ?h?uld d???nd on ?ultur? b???u?? th?r? i? n?thing else u??n which it i? based.N?w we might argue for cultural r?l?tivi?m ?? f?ll?w?:Argument 1 â€" (fr?m th? div?r?it? th??i?)Different cultures h?v? diff?r?nt moral codes;Thu?, th?r? is n? morality ind???nd?nt of ?ultur?.The weakness ?f thi? argument i? th?t th? ??n?lu?i?n d???n’t f?ll?w fr?m th? premise. Th? f??t th?t cultures di??gr?? ?b?ut m?r?lit? doesn’t ?h?w th?t morality is r?l?tiv?.Aft?r ?ll, ?ultur?? disagree ?b?ut whether ?b?rti?n i? moral ?r imm?r?l, but t h?ir disagreement d???n’t m??n th?r? i? no truth ?b?ut th? m?tt?r. It might be that one culture i? ju?t mi?t?k?n.C?n?id?r h?w ?ultur?? might di??gr?? ?? t? wh?th?r th? earth ?r ?un i? at th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Th?ir di??gr??m?nt doesn’t m??n there is no truth ?b?ut th? matter.Th?r? i? a ?r?v?n fact b??k?d by science th?t ?h?w? the ?un is th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Thi? ?im?l? m??n? whether you b?li?v? it or not, it remains a f??t.Simil?rl?, ???i?ti?? might di??gr?? ?b?ut wh?th?r they ?h?uld put their ??ung t? d??th, but th?t di??gr??m?nt ?r?v?? n?thing, ?x???t th?t “???i?ti?? di??gr??”. So cultural disagreements ?r? n?t ?n?ugh t? ?r?v? ?ultur?l relativism. C?n?id?r another ?rgum?nt:Argum?nt 2 â€" (fr?m th? d???nd?n?? th??i?)Wh?t i? often regarded as th? m?r?l truths depends on ?ultur?l b?li?f?;Thu?, th?r? i? no m?r?l truth independent of culture.The ?rgum?nt ??mmit? the f?ll??? that l?gi?i?n? ??ll “b?gging the ?u??ti?n.”This ???ur? wh?n you assume th? truth of wh?t ??u ?r? tr?ing t? prove. (For ?x?m?l?, if you ??k m? wh? I think abortion i? wrong ?nd I say, b???u?? it’? bad, I’v? b?gg?d the question.)In argument 2, one i? trying to ?h?w th?t right and wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur?. It b?g? th? ?u??ti?n t? ??? th?t right ?nd wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur? b???u?? th?? d???nd on ?ultur?.We might w? m?k? a ?tr?ng?r case f?r th? r?l?tivi?t if we ?ut th? two th???? t?g?th?r?Premise 1 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng v?r? b?tw??n ?ultur?? (div?r?it?).Pr?mi?? 2 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng depend u??n a ?ultur?l ??nt?xt (d???nd?n??).C?n?lu?i?n â€" Thu?, right ?nd wr?ng ?r? relative t? ?ultur?.Critique of Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 1Let’s ??n?id?r th? first premise (div?r?it?). Nothing ???m? m?r? ?bvi?u? th?n the f??t ?f cultural diff?r?n???. E?kim?? b?li?v?d in inf?nti?id?; m??t Am?ri??n? d? n?t. Most Am?ri??n? b?li?v? ?x??uting ?rimin?l? i? m?r?ll? justifiable; most Fr?n?h find th? ?r??ti?? b?rb?ri?. Clearly, th?r? are diff?r?nt ?ultur?l m?r??. But m??b? the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n ?ultur?l v?lu?? ?r? not ?? great as they ???m.C?n?id?r th?t Eskimos liv? in harsh climates wh?r? f??d is in ?h?rt ?u??l? ?nd m?th?r? nur?? th?ir b?bi?? for ???r?. There ?im?l? i?n’t ?n?ugh f??d f?r ?ll their ?hildr?n, nor enough b??k? upon which nomadic people can ??rr? th?ir children. S? Eskimos w?nt their ?hildr?n t? liv? ju?t lik? we d?, ?nd it i? th? h?r?h and unusual condition th?t f?r?? th?m t? m?k? diffi?ult ?h?i???.S?m?tim?? th?? kill a weaker child so th?t both th? ?tr?ng?r ?nd weaker children won’t di?. W? m?? di??gr?? with th? ?r??ti??, but w? can im?gin? d?ing th? ??m? in similar circumstances. Thu?, th? underlying principle life i? v?lu?bl? h?? b??n ???li?d differently in diff?r?nt contexts. M??b? ?ultur?? ?r?n’t so diff?r?nt ?ft?r ?ll.C?n?id?r that there i? m?r? ?rim? in America th?n in France. Most Am?ri??n? seem t? b?li?v? that criminals deserve to b? ?uni?h?d for th?ir ?rim??, th?t ??v?r? ?uni?hm?nt brings ????? t? th? vi?tim’? f?mil?, that ???it?l punishment i? a d?t?rr?nt to crime, ?t?. Th? French ?r? m?r? lik?l? to renounce r?tributi?n ?r doubt that ???it?l ?uni?hm?nt bring? vi?tim’? f?mili?? ????? ?r d?t?r? crime.But notice ?g?in. B?th ?ultur?? ?r? steered b? a ?rin?i?l? ??t ju?tl? ?v?n th?ugh th?? ???l? the ?rin?i?l? diff?r?ntl?. So u??n closer in????ti?n, th?r? d???n’t ???m to b? as much di??gr??m?nt as it fir?t ?????r?d. So th? diff?r?n??? in ?ultur?l values might be more ????r?nt th?n real.N?w ?u????? w? ??uld ?h?w th?t there ?r? m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? that ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?? Wouldn’t that ?h?w that morality w?? not r?l?tiv? t? ?ultur?? Many ??i?nti?t? ?l?im th?t there are moral ?rin?i?l?? common t? ?ll ?ultur??.For in?t?n??, ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?: r?gul?ti?n? ?n sexual b?h?vi?r; ?r?hibiti?n? ?g?in?t unju?t killing; r??uir?m?nt? ?f familial obligations and ?hild care; emphasis ?n truth-telling; and r?w?rd f?r reciprocity and ?????r?ti?n.If w? take th??? two id??? t?g?th?r ?ultur?l moral diff?r?n??? arenâ €™t as great ?? they appear, ?nd all ?ultur?? ?h?r? ??m? moral v?lu?? th?n th? diversity thesis is f?l??. And if th? fir?t ?r?mi?? i? f?l??, th?n th? ??n?lu?i?n ?f the cultural relativist’s argument d???n’t follow.However n?ti?? th?t even if th? first ?r?mi?? is f?l??, that d???n’t ?r?v? that m?r?l objectivism i? tru?. Cultur?? th?t ?h?r? the same m?r?l v?lu?? ??uld ?ll be wr?ng! So the ?m?iri??l evidence concerning ?imil?riti?? and diff?r?n??? b?tw??n moral codes i?n’t r?l?v?nt t? the ?u??ti?n ?f whether m?r?lit? is absolute ?r r?l?tiv?.And that m??n? that whil? w? h?v?n’t ?r?v?n th? truth of ?ultur?l absolutism, w? have und?rmin?d th? cultural r?l?tivi?t.F?r the ?vid?n?? ?b?ut diversity of ?ultur? is irr?l?v?nt, then w? h?v? undermined th? r?l?tivi?t’? fir?t ?r?mi??, and with it the conclusion ?f hi?/h?r ?rgum?nt.Criti?u? ?f Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 2Whil? undermining the fir?t premise ?uffi?i?ntl? und?rmin?? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, l?t’? turn to th? secon d ?r?mi?? (dependency) t? ??? if it f?r?? ?n? b?tt?r. N?w it d??? ?????r tru? th?t ??m? moral “truths” d???nd ?n ?ultur? f?r ?x?m?l?, regulations on sexual behaviors or fun?r?l practices.But it i? not ??lf-?vid?nt that ?ll m?r?l truth depends ?n ?ultur?. Moral truth may b? ind???nd?nt ?f ?ultur? in th? same way th?t ?th?r truth? ?r? independent of ?ultur?. Ethi?? m?? b? ?bj??tiv?l? gr?und?d in r????n, th? god’s ??mm?nd?, th? m??t happiness f?r th? m??t people, human nature, ?r something else.But r?th?r th?n tr?ing t? contradict ?ll the r?l?tivi?t’? ?rgum?nt? for the ????nd ?r?mi??, consider th? im?li??ti?n? ?f taking ?ultur?l relativism ??ri?u?l?. If ?ultur?l relativism is true th?n ?ll ?f the following (??unt?r-intuitiv?) ?r? true.W? ??nn?t m?k? cross-cultural judgm?nt?. W? ??uld n?t consistently criticize a ?ultur? for killing all those over f?rt?, ?xt?rmin?ting ethnic groups, ?r banishing ?hildr?n t? th? Antarctic.We ??nn?t m?k? intr?-?ultur?l judgm?nt?. W? cannot ???, e ven within ?ur ?ultur?, whether w? ?h?uld send ?hildr?n t? their d??th ?r to ??h??l, wh?th?r w? should t?rtur? ?ur ?rimin?l? ?r reward th?m.The id?? ?f m?r?l progress is in??h?r?nt. All you ??n say is th?t cultures ?h?ng?, n?t that one i? b?tt?r than another. The old ?ultur? ?r??ti??d ?l?v?r?; w? do n?t, ?nd th?t’? th? end of it. Th? appearance ?f moral ?r?gr??? i? illu??r?. (M?r? ?n th?t shortly)But ?ll of thi? is counter-intuitive. W? might think th?t cultures ??n d? what th?? w?nt r?g?rding fun?r?l ?r??ti???, but wh?t ?b?ut hum?n ???rifi??? Aren’t th?r? some thing? th?t ?r? just ?l?in wrong, in both ?th?r ?ultur?? ?nd ?ur ?wn? D?n’t ??u b?li?v? that ???i?t? i? better n?w b???u?? it has ?utl?w?d ?l?v?r?? Cultur?l relativism answers no t? b?th ?u??ti?n?. But ??n ?u?h a strongly counterintuitive th??r? be ??rr??t?“But to ?x?li?itl? ?dv???t? cultural r?l?tivi?m on the gr?und? th?t it promotes t?l?r?n?? i? t? im?li?itl? assume th?t t?l?r?n?? i? ?n absolute v?lu?…..”.   S?h i?k ?nd V?ughn, 2010WHY CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG“Show m? a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t ?t 30,000 feet and Ill ?h?w ??u a hypocrite ” Ri?h?rd D?wkin?, Riv?r Out ?f Ed?n: A D?rwini?n Vi?w ?f Lif?1. Univ?r??l M?r?l RulesIn the ethics lit?r?tur?, both cultural r?l?tivi?t? ?nd ?b??luti?t? ?gr?? th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? incompatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f univ?r??l moral rules. In ?rd?r t? defend moral r?l?tivi?m, f?r example, Harman ?l?im? that it i? unlik?l? that univ?r??ll? ?????t?d m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?xi?t:It is unlikely th?t ?n? nontrivial m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?r? universally ?????t?d in all ???i?ti??. (H?rm?n, 1996)With th? vi?w t? r?futing ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Th?m??n in 1990, and S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn in their 2010 work argue th?t there ?r? universal moral rules. Th?ir ?x?m?l?? ?r? ?? f?ll?w?:“On? ?ught n?t t? t?rtur? b?bi?? to d??th f?r fun” Th?m??n  â€œEquals ?h?uld b? tr??t?d ??u?ll? is n?t th? ?nl? ??lf-?vid?nt m?r?l truth. An?th?r i?: Unn??????r? suffering i? wr?ng” S?hi?k an d VaughnThese moral rules are ?? intuitiv?l? appealing th?t violating th?m ???m? t? r??ult in ?n imm?r?l ??t whichever culture you may liv? in. C?n???u?ntl?, th?? are univ?r??l, and h?n?? th?? ?r? counterexamples and r?fut? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m.C?ntr?di?t the m?r?l? ?b?v? as b?ing r?l?tivi?t?, I’ll wait!Some ??i?nti?t believe that the ?xi?t?n?? of univ?r??l moral rul?? i? not ?ntir?l? a ?trik? ?g?in?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. Recall th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?l?im? th?t ?n ??t is right or wr?ng with respect to a ?ultur?, and th?t n? ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n another.N?n? of these claims ?r? undercut b? th? existence of th? ?? ??ll?d universal m?r?l rul??.F?r th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, a m?r?l rul? is universal n?t b???u?? it i? in line with th? absolutely right ?t?nd?rd th?t transcends ?ll cultures but because it i? in lin? with all the ?ultur?? in th? w?rld. Cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have t? ?r??lud? th? ????ibilit? th?t all the cultures in the world jointly ?nd?r?? some moral rul??.To p ut differently, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is compatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f ?n int?r???ti?n ?m?ng diff?r?nt ?ultur??. Su????? that the intersection in?lud?? the m?r?l rule that one ought not t? t?rtur? babies t? d??th for fun.Th?n, if a K?r??n ?r ?n Am?ri??n t?rtur?? a b?b? to d??th, it would b? immoral b???u?? it i? prohibited b? th?ir r?????tiv? ?ultur??, n?t because it d??? not m?t?h u? with th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd.It follows that cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have to require th?t n? moral ?rin?i?l? be univ?r??l.“Historicism and cultural r?l?tivi?m actually are a m??n? t? ?v?id t??ting our ?wn ?r?judi??? ?nd ??king, for ?x?m?l?, wh?th?r men ?r? r??ll? equal ?r wh?th?r th?t ??ini?n i? m?r?l? a d?m??r?ti? ?r?judi??” Allan Bloom2. Hitler Was RightAccording t? th? th??r? ?f ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Hitl?r’? g?n??id?l ??ti?n i? ju?t as m?r?ll? praiseworthy ?? M?th?r T?r???’? ???rifi?i?l action:“Ad?lf Hitl?r’? genocidal ??ti?n?, ?? long as they are ?ultur?ll? ?????t?d, ?r? ?? morally l?gitim?t? ?? M?th?r T?r???’? works ?f mercy” P?jm?n, 2007Hitl?r’? heinous acts w?r? accepted b? the N?zi culture, so ?ultur?l relativism ?nt?il? that th?? w?r? m?r?l. Our intuition, h?w?v?r, tells u? that it w?? imm?r?l. Th?r?f?r?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is f?l?? ?nd ultim?t?l? wr?ng.D???it? Pojman’s foregoing ?bj??ti?n, a cultural r?l?tivi?t would ?t?nd hi? gr?und, saying th?t Hitler’s ??t? were m?r?l with r?????t t? the Nazi ?ultur?, and M?th?r T?r???’? acts w?r? m?r?l with respect to n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Hitler’s acts ??und imm?r?l t? u? b???u?? ?ur intuiti?n i? influ?n??d b? non-Nazi ?ultur? which we ?r? implicitly u?ing ?? the m?r?l fr?m?w?rk t? ?v?lu?t? hi? ??t?.We ?l?? m?k? a ???nt?n??u? judgm?nt that n?n-N?zi ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n th? N?zi culture because ?ur intuiti?n i? l?d?n with non-Nazi ?ultur?, ?nd w? ?r? t??itl? employing it ?? the ?t?nd?rd to ?????? the Nazi ?ultur?.M?mb?r? of th? N?zi ?ultur? would r?j??t ?ur judgm?nt because th?ir intuition i? ?r?d i?????d to f?v?r th?ir own culture, ?nd th?? are unconsciously u?ing it in ???r?i?ing n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Furth?rm?r?, if Hitler h?d been a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, h? would n?t h?v? ?tt??k?d J?w? in th? fir?t ?l??? b???u?? h? would h?v? believed th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? n? m?r? ??rr??t than th? Jewish ?ultur?.M?r??v?r, hi? ?tr??i?u? ??ti?n? conform w?ll t? a cultural absolutist’s possible b?li?f th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? ?u??ri?r t? th? Jewish ?ultur?.D???it? th? ju?tifi??ti?n?, w? ?till d? know th?t Hitl?r was wr?ng.So if ??u f??l Hitl?r w?? right, then cultural relativism i? right, but if ?n the other hand, you f??l Hitl?r was wr?ng, th?n it proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? wrong.Personally, I think Hitler was wrong.“I know ?f no civilization th?t tolerates or justifies vi?l?n??, t?rr?ri?m, or inju?ti??. Th?r? i? n? ?iviliz?ti?n th?t ju?tifi?? the killing ?f inn???nt people. Th??? wh? ?r? invoking ?ultur?l relativism ?r? r??ll? using that ?? an excuse for vi?l?ting hum?n righ t? ?nd to ?ut a ?ultur?l m??k ?n th? f??? ?f what th??r? doing”  â€"  Shirin Eb?di3. S??i?l R?f?rm?r? Ar? WrongS?m? ?hil????h?r? ?l?im th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m l??d? t? an unsavory ??n???u?n?? that ???i?l r?f?rm?r? ?r? ?lw??? wr?ng t? ?????? a ???i?ll? ?????t?d practice:“S??i?l r?f?rm?r? ??uldn’t ?l?im th?t a ???i?ll? approved ?r??ti?? is wr?ng because if ???i?t? ???r?v?? of it, it mu?t be right”. S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn, 2010“..reformers are ?lw??? (morally) wr?ng since th?? g? against the tid? of ?ultur?l ?t?nd?rd?. F?r ?x?m?l?, William Wilb?rf?r?? w?? wr?ng in th? ?ight??nth ??ntur? t? oppose ?l?v?r?”. (P?jm?n, 2007It ??und? convincing t? u?, h?w?v?r, that ?l?v?r? w?? a d??l?r?bl? practice, ?nd th?t th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right t? challenge it. But cultural relativism ???? ?th?rwi??.A cultural relativist w?uld r??l? th?t th? ???i?l reformers w?r? ind??d wr?ng t? oppose ?l?v?r?, but he would add that th?? were wr?ng with r?????t to the past ?ultur?, ?nd they were right wi th respect t? ??m? ?r???nt ?ultur?.W? instantaneously assent to th? vi?w that th? r?f?rm?r? w?r? right b???u?? ?ur intuition i? influ?n??d b? th? present ?ultur?, and w? employ it to d?t?rmin? whether th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right or wr?ng.We w?uld h?v? h?d th? ?????it? intuiti?n that the ???i?l reformers w?r? wrong, if w? had liv?d in th? past ?ultur? wh?r? ?l?v?r? was t?k?n for gr?nt?d, ?nd if we h?d u??d th? ???t ?ultur? as a framework for our m?r?l judgm?nt.L?t me add th?t if th? m??t?r? had b??n ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t?, th?? would not h?v? ?n?l?v?d th? bl??k? in th? first ?l??? because th?? w?uld h?v? b?li?v?d th?t their ?ultur? w?? n? b?tt?r than th? black ?ultur?.Th? whit??’ ??t of ?n?l?ving the bl??k? m??h?? w?ll with a ?ultur?l ?b??luti?t’? ????ibl? b?li?f th?t th? white culture i? superior t? th? bl??k culture.Ag?in, it i? not ?l??r wh?th?r it is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?r ?b??luti?m th?t h?? a m?r? hazardous im???t on our d?il? liv??4. N? M?r?l Pr?gr???Let u? ??m??r? the ? ??t ?ultur? where th?r? were slaves with the ?r???nt ?ultur? wh?r? th?r? ?r? n? ?l?v??.A???rding t? cultural r?l?tivi?m, there i? n? ?u?h thing ?? ?n ?b??lut?l? right standard, ?? th? ?r???nt ?ultur? i? n?ith?r better n?r worse than th? past ?ultur?. If th?t i? tru?, however, th?r? w?uld b? n? ?u?h thing ?? m?r?l ?r?gr???:“T? say th?t w? h?v? m?d? progress im?li?? that ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is b?tt?r â€" just th? ??rt ?f transcultural judgment that Cultur?l Relativism forbids”. Rachels ?nd R??h?l?, 2010W? strongly b?li?v?, however, th?t ?ultur? and m?r?lit? h?v? ?r?gr????d, i.?., th? ?r???nt culture is more ??rr??t than the past ?ultur?.Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is wrong.The id?? of m?r?l progress i? called int? d?ubt. Usually, we think th?t ?t least ??m? ???i?l ?h?ng?? ?r? f?r the b?tt?r. (Although, ?f course, ?th?r changes may be f?r th? w?r??.) Thr?ugh?ut most ?f Western history th? place ?f w?m?n in ???i?t? was narrowly circumscribed. Th?? ??uld n?t ?wn ?r???rt?; th?? cou ld not v?t? or h?ld political ?ffi??; ?nd g?n?r?ll? th?? w?r? und?r th? almost ?b??lut? control of their husbands. R???ntl? mu?h ?f thi? h?? ?h?ng?d, ?nd m??t people think ?f it ?? progress.If Cultural Relativism i? ??rr??t, can we l?gitim?t?l? think ?f this as ?r?gr???? Progress m??n? r??l??ing a way ?f d?ing things with a b?tt?r way. But b? what ?t?nd?rd d? we judge th? new ways ?? better? If th? old w??? w?r? in ????rd?n?? with th? social ?t?nd?rd? ?f th?ir tim?, then Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m w?uld ??? it is a mistake t? judg? th?m b? th? ?t?nd?rd? ?f a different time. Eight??nth-??ntur? ???i?t? w??, in effect, a different ???i?t? fr?m th? ?n? w? h?v? n?w. T? ??? th?t w? h?v? m?d? ?r?gr??? im?li?? a judgm?nt th?t ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is better, ?nd th?t is just th? sort ?f tr?n??ultur?l judgment th?t, according to Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, i? im??rmi??ibl?.Our idea ?f social reform will ?l?? h?v? to be r???n?id?r?d. R?f?rm?r? such ?? M?rtin Luth?r King, Jr., h?v? sought t? ?h?ng? their soci eties for th? b?tt?r. Within th? constraints im????d b? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, there i? ?n? w?? this might b? done. If a ???i?t? i? n?t living u? t? it? own id??l?, th? r?f?rm?r m?? be regarded ?? ??ting f?r the b??t: Th? id??l? of th? ???i?t? ?r? th? standard by whi?h w? judge his ?r her ?r?????l? ?? worthwhile. But th? r?f?rm?r m?? n?t ?h?ll?ng? th? id??l? th?m??lv??, f?r those id??l? ?r? b? d?finiti?n ??rr??t. A???rding t? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, th?n, th? id?? ?f ???i?l reform m?k?? ??n?? only in thi? limit?d way.These thr?? consequences of Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m have l?d many think?r? t? reject it ?? implausible ?n it? f???. It d??? m?k? ??n??, th?? ???, to ??nd?mn ??m? practices, such as slavery and ?nti-S?miti?m, wherever th?? occur. It m?k?? ??n?? t? think th?t ?ur own ???i?t? has m?d? ??m? m?r?l progress, whil? admitting th?t it is still im??rf??t and in need ?f r?f?rm. Because Cultur?l Relativism ???? that th??? judgments m?k? n? ??n??, th? argument g???, it cannot b? right.A ?ult ur?l r?l?tivi?t w?uld ?dmit th?t w? m?v?d t?w?rd equality ?? a r??ult ?f th? ?b?liti?n ?f slavery, but he would deny th?t w? moved t?w?rd the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd.W? m?? think th?t w? ?r? n?w ?l???r to th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd b???u?? ??u?lit? is ?f ?b??lut? v?lu?.When we think ??, h?w?v?r, w? ?r? u?ing th? ?r???nt ?ultur? ?? ?ur moral fr?m? of r?f?r?n?? which approves of equality.If we use th? ???t culture ?? ?ur m?r?l frame of reference whi?h di????r?v?d of ??u?lit?, we would h?v? ?n ?????it? intuition that we ?r? n?w farther fr?m the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd, and h?n?? w? m?d? m?r?l r?gr??? r?th?r th?n ?r?gr???.5. Any Act ??n b? Made M?r?lPojman argues that ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m has th? di?turbing ??n???u?n?? that ?v?n a fl?gr?nt ?rim? ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? conjuring u? a culture whi?h accepts it:“Bundy would b? morally ?ur? in r??ing ?nd killing inn???nt? ?im?l? b? virtu? ?f forming a little coterie”. P?jm?n, 2007Forming such a ?ultur?, h?w?v?r, does n?t make r??ing and killing inn???nt? m?r?l. But ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m di??gr???.A cultural r?l?tivi?t would cheerfully gr?nt that ?n? act ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? forming a ?ultur? that ???r?v?? of it. His ???iti?n i? ?r????t?r?u?. Let u? g? to th? r?l?tivit? ?f m?ti?n.A ??r i? tr?v?lling ?t 50km/h with r?????t to the gr?und ?? a ?t?nd?rd. But ?? l?ng as you inv?k? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??, th? ??r can be said t? b? tr?v?lling ?t any ????d ??u like. F?r ?x?m?l?, it can b? said t? be moving ?t 30km/h, if ??u ?i?k ?? a fr?m? ?f reference a bicycle tr?v?lling at 20km/h with r?????t to the ground in the ??m? dir??ti?n.Regarding the ??m? ??r, ??u can say th?t it i? m?ving ?t 50km/h, 30km/h, ?t?. You ??n ?h???? wh?t?v?r v?l??it? ??u lik?. Y?u ?r? right about th? velocity of the ??r, insofar ?? ??u appeal t? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??.The ??m? is true of m?r?lit?.You are right about th? morality ?f a ??rt?in ??ti?n in??mu?h ?? ??u invoke a ?ultur? whi?h ??mm?nd? it.F?r ?x?m?l?, you ??n ??? that murd?r i? rig ht, but ?dd th?t th? action is ???????d und?r th? ?rimin?l culture whi?h ?r?i??? murd?r.And tru?t m?, th?t’? just BS. Murd?r is wr?ng.“Wh?n?v?r w?m?n ?r?t??t and ask for th?ir rights, th?? ?r? silenced with th? ?rgum?nt th?t th? l?w? ?r? ju?tifi?d und?r I?l?m. It i? an unf?und?d argument. It is not Islam ?t f?ult, but r?th?r th? ??tri?r?h?l ?ultur? th?t uses it? ?wn int?r?r?t?ti?n? t? ju?tif? wh?t?v?r it w?nt?”  â€"  Shirin Eb?diWe could d??id? wh?th?r ??ti?n? are right or wr?ng just b? consulting th? standards of our ???i?t?. Cultur?l Relativism ?ugg??t? a ?im?l? t??t f?r d?t?rmining wh?t i? right and wh?t i? wr?ng: All ?n? need d? is ask wh?th?r th? action is in accordance with th? code ?f ?n?? ???i?t?. Suppose in 1975, a r??id?nt of South Afri?? was w?nd?ring wh?th?r hi? ??untr?? ??li?? of ???rth?id, a rigidl? racist ???t?m w?? m?r?ll? ??rr??t. All h? h?? t? d? i? ask wh?th?r thi? policy ??nf?rm?d t? hi? ???i?t?? m?r?l code. If it did, th?r? w?uld h?v? b??n n?thing to worry about, at l???t fr?m a moral point of vi?w.Thi? im?li??ti?n ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m is disturbing b???u?? f?w ?f us think that our ???i?t?? ??d? i? perfect; w? ??n think ?f w??? it might b? im?r?v?d. Yet Cultur?l Relativism would n?t ?nl? f?rbid us fr?m ?riti?izing th? ??d?? ?f ?th?r ???i?ti??; it would ?t?? u? fr?m ?riti?izing ?ur ?wn. Aft?r ?ll, if right and wr?ng are r?l?tiv? to ?ultur?, thi? must be tru? for ?ur own ?ultur? ju?t ?? mu?h ?? f?r ?th?r cultures.6. Vague C?n???tR???ll th?t cultural r?l?tivi?m holds th?t m?r?lit? i? r?l?tiv? t? a ?ultur?. Th?r? i? ?n objection th?t w? cannot ?r??i??l? d?fin? th? ??n???t of ?ultur? that figur?? in th? formulation of cultural r?l?tivi?m:“How l?rg? mu?t th? group b? in order t? b? a legitimate ?ub?ultur? or society?”…P?jm?nSince it is n?t ?l??r h?w m?n? m?mb?r? are r??uir?d for a culture ?r a ???i?t? to serve as a m?r?l fr?m?w?rk, cultural r?l?tivi?m is ??n???tu?ll? fl?w?d.In ?rd?r t? ??nfr?nt P?jm?n’? criticism ?b?v?, a cultura l relativist ??uld ??njur? u? again the relativity of m?ti?n. W? ??n gr?u? a tree, a road ?ign, and a r??k t?g?th?r, and say that a ??r is travelling ?t 50km/h in r?l?ti?n to th?t gr?u? of the ?bj??t?. H?w many objects are r??uir?d in ?rd?r for th? gr?u? t? ??rv? as a fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n???The answer is ?bvi?u?. An? numb?r of ?bj??t? can d?. Ev?n milli?n ?bj??t? can ??n?titut? a ?ingl? frame ?f r?f?r?n??. The ??m? is true ?f m?r?lit? f?r a cultural relativist. An? number of ????l? can constitute a ?ultur?.In ??n?lu?i?n, I ??n create m? ?wn ?ultur? alone ?nd d??id? th?t I accept killing people f?r th? fun of it.Recall th?t cultural ?b??luti?m ???? th?t there i? th? ?b??lut?l? right standard transcending all “cultures.” N?t? th?t th? ??n???t ?f culture ?l?? figur?? in the f?rmul?ti?n of ?ultur?l ?b??luti?m.A ?ultur?l absolutist i? faced with a ?imil?r challenge: H?w large must a gr?u? be in ?rd?r t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t i? transcended b? th? ?b??lut?l? right culture tr?n???nd??A lso, as di??u???d in a f?r?g?ing section, P?jm?n ?bj??t? th?t social r?f?rm?r? are ?lw??? wr?ng t? g? ?g?in?t their ?wn ?ultur? if ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m were true.How l?rg? must a group b? in order t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t th? reformers ??????? Thu?, P?jm?n’? ?riti?i?m ?g?in?t cultural relativism f?r?? n? b?tt?r th?n cultural r?l?tivi?m vi?-à-vi? th? problem h? r?i??? against it.7. Belonging t? Two Cultur??A ??r??n m?? belong t? diff?r?nt ?ultur?? at th? ??m? time, and they may h?v? conflicting m?r?l ??d??. In ?u?h a ?itu?ti?n, hi? ?r h?r ??t can be b?th right ?nd wr?ng:Relativism would seem to t?ll us th?t wh?r? h? is a m?mb?r of ???i?ti?? with conflicting m?r?liti?? he mu?t b? judged b?th wr?ng ?nd not-wrong wh?t?v?r h? d???. P?jm?n, 2007Suppose, f?r ?x?m?l?, th?t M?r? is an American citizen and Chri?ti?n, ?nd th?t ?h? h?d ?n abortion. The Am?ri??n law ??nd?n?? it, but Chri?ti?nit? ?r?hibit? it. A???rding t? ?ultur?l relativism, M?r?’? abortion i? b?th right ?nd wr?ng, but it i? impossible f?r an act t? b? b?th right and wr?ng.A cultural relativist w?uld ?g?in ??k u? t? r?fl??t u??n the r?l?tivit? of m?ti?n. Su????? th?t a ??r is in m?ti?n with r?????t to the ground. In ?u?h a situation, th? driver is b?th in m?ti?n ?nd ?t r??t.At first glance, a ??ntr?di?ti?n is ??mmitt?d, but th? ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? once we m?k? th? fr?m?? ?f r?f?r?n?? explicit. Th? driv?r is in motion with respect to th? gr?und but is ?t r??t with r?????t to th? ?????ng?r.The same i? tru? ?f m?r?lit? for th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t.At fir?t ?ight, it is a contradiction that Mary’s ?b?rti?n i? both m?r?l ?nd immoral, but this ???ming ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? ?n?? we ?xhibit the ?ultur?? by whi?h M?r?’? abortion is judg?d. M?r?’? abortion i? m?r?l in relation t? th? Am?ri??n culture but is immoral in relation to th? Chri?ti?n culture.Thu?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? und?rmin?d because ?n? b?l?ng? t? different cultures with contradictory m?r?l ??d??.Whi?h ?ultur? should Mary ?h???? w hen ?h? ??nt?m?l?t?? wh?th?r t? h?v? ?n abortion ?r not? Critics argue th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?il?nt on this issue:“Relativism ???m? to ?r?vid? n? way t? g?t a handle on th? kind ?f uncertainty that a ??r??n may h?v? in ?h???ing between the ways ?f his ?hur?h, hi? f?mil?, hi? fri?nd?, his ??untri??, ?t?”. S?tri?, 2008“Each ?f us i? a m?mb?r ?f m?n? different cultures, ?nd there is no w?? t? d?t?rmin? whi?h one is ?ur tru? ?ultur?”. Schick and V?ughn: 2010It i? n?t ?l??r whi?h ?ultur? we ?h?uld ?h????, ?nd wh?t would be the grounds f?r ?ur ?h?i??. Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?n incomplete theory ?f m?r?lit?.In r????n??, a cultural relativist would ?g?in ??k u? to imagine th?t a car is tr?v?lling at 50km/h with respect t? th? ground but is at r??t with r?????t to th? passenger.Of the ground ?nd th? passenger, which ?bj??t ?h?uld w? ?h???? ?? a fr?m? of reference? Th? answer i? ?bvi?u?. W? can choose wh?t?v?r ?bj??t we lik? ?? l?ng as it ?uit? ?ur need whi?h i? ??m? w?rth wrong i? ??u ??k m?. Chosing th?t a behavior is right or wrong ?nl? when it suits ??u.If w? ?r? interested in how long it will t?k? for the driv?r to reach hi? d??tin?ti?n, it i? appropriate t? ?h???? th? gr?und ?? th? fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In other ?itu?ti?n?, we m?? ?h???? the ?????ng?r ?r ?th?r m?ving ??r? on th? r??d. L?t u? ???l? thi? point t? Mary’s ?itu?ti?n.If Mary i? interested in h?r future ?? a Chri?ti?n, she ??n choose Christianity ?? her fr?m? of r?f?r?n??. If ?h? is interested in her future ?? ?n American, she m?? ?h???? the Am?ri??n ?ultur? ?? h?r fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In ?h?rt, ?ur interest d?t?rmin?? whi?h ?ultur? we choose ?? a standard wh?n w? appraise a hum?n conduct, and th?t’? ju?t a f?n?? w?? of ???ing ??lfi?h.It futh?r proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivit? i? fl?w?d.Is Th?r? a Culture-Neutral Standard ?f Right and Wrong?Th?r? is, of ??ur??, a l?t that ??n b? ??id against the ?r??ti?? ?f ?x?i?i?n. Ex?i?i?n is painful ?nd it results in the permanent l??? ?f ??x u?l pleasure. Its ?h?rt-t?rm effects include h?m?rrh?g?, t?t?nu?, ?nd septicemia. Sometimes th? woman di??. Long t?rm ?ff??t? in?lud? ?hr?ni? inf??ti?n, ???r? th?t hinder w?lking, and ??ntinuing ??in.Wh?, then, h?? it b???m? a widespread ???i?l ?r??ti??? It i? n?t ???? t? ???. Ex?i?i?n h?? no ?bvi?u? ???i?l b?n?fit?. Unlik? E?kim? infanticide, it i? n?t necessary f?r th? groups survival. Nor i? it a matter ?f religion. Ex?i?i?n is ?r??ti??d b? gr?u?? with v?ri?u? r?ligi?n?, in?luding Islam ?nd Christianity, n?ith?r of whi?h ??mm?nd it.N?v?rth?l???, a numb?r ?f reasons are giv?n in it? d?f?n??. W?m?n wh? ?r? in????bl? ?f ??xu?l ?l???ur? are ??id to b? l??? lik?l? to b? ?r?mi??u?u?; thu? th?r? will b? fewer unwanted pregnancies in unm?rri?d w?m?n.M?r??v?r, wiv?? f?r whom ??x is ?nl? a duty are less lik?l? t? be unf?ithful to their hu?b?nd?; ?nd b???u?? they will n?t b? thinking ?b?ut ??x, th?? will b? more attentive t? th? n??d? ?f th?ir husbands and ?hildr?n.Hu?b?nd?, f?r th?ir ??rt, ?r? said t? ?nj?? sex more with wiv?? who have b??n ?x?i??d. (Th? womens own l??k ?f enjoyment i? ??id t? be unimportant.)M?n will n?t w?nt un?x?i??d w?m?n, ?? th?? ?r? unclean and imm?tur?. And ?b?v? all, it h?? b??n d?n? since ?nti?uit?, ?nd we m?? n?t ?h?ng? th? ancient w???.It w?uld be ????, ?nd perhaps a bit ?rr?g?nt, t? ridicule these arguments. But w? may n?ti?? ?n important f??tur? of thi? wh?l? lin? ?f r????ning: it attempts t? ju?tif? excision b? ?h?wing th?t excision is beneficial men, w?m?n, and th?ir f?mili?? are all ??id t? be b?tt?r off when women ?r? excised. Thu? w? might ???r???h thi? reasoning, and ?x?i?i?n it??lf, by asking whi?h i? tru?: I? ?x?i?i?n, ?n the wh?l?, h?l?ful ?r h?rmful?H?r?, then, i? th? ?t?nd?rd that might m??t reasonably be u??d in thinking about excision: W? m?? ??k whether th? practice ?r?m?t?? ?r hind?r? th? w?lf?r? ?f th? ????l? wh??? liv?? ?r? ?ff??t?d b? it.And, ?? a ??r?ll?r?, we m?? ??k if there i? ?n ?lt?rn?tiv? set ?f ???i?l ?rr?ng?m?n t? th?t would d? a better job ?f ?r?m?ting th?ir w?lf?r?. If ??, w? may conclude th?t the ?xi?ting ?r??ti?? i? deficient.But thi? l??k? lik? ju?t th? ??rt of independent moral ?t?nd?rd th?t Cultural R?l?tivi?m ???? ??nn?t exist. It i? a single ?t?nd?rd that m?? b? br?ught t? bear in judging th? ?r??ti??? ?f ?n? culture, ?t ?n? tim?, in?luding our ?wn.Of ??ur??, people will n?t usually ??? thi? ?rin?i?l? ?? b?ing br?ught in fr?m the ?ut?id? t? judg? them, because, like th? rules against lying ?nd homicide, the w?lf?r? ?f it? m?mb?r? is a value int?rn?l t? all viable ?ultur??.CONCLUSION: THE TAKE AWAY“Th? id?? ?f ?ultur?l relativism i? n?thing but ?n ?x?u?? t? vi?l?t? human rights”â€" Shirin Eb?diW? h?v? id?ntified b?th wh?t i? right ?nd what is wr?ng in Cultural R?l?tivi?m. B??i??ll?, everything i? right ?? f?r it i? permitted by your culture ?r cultures.W? ??n also b?th ?gr?? that ?ultur?l relativism r??t? on an inv?lid ?rgum?nt, th?t it h?? ??n???u?n??? th?t makes it im?l?u?ibl ? on it? face, and that th? extent ?f moral di??gr??m?nt is far less than it implies.Thi? all ?dd? u? t? a ?r?tt? thorough rejection ?f th? theory. N?v?rth?l???, it i? still a very ?????ling id??, ?nd ??u m?? have th? feeling that all thi? i? a bit unfair and it ??m?h?w makes ??m? sense.After all, the theory mu?t h?v? ??m?thing g?ing f?r it, or else why has it been so influential?In fact, I think th?r? i? ??m?thing right ?b?ut Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, ?nd n?w I want to say what that i?. Th?r? are two lessons w? should l??rn fr?m th? theory, ?v?n if w? ultim?t?l? r?j??t it.Cultural R?l?tivi?m w?rn? us, quite rightl?, about th? d?ng?r ?f ???uming th?t all our preferences ?r? based ?n ??m? absolute rational ?t?nd?rd. Th?? are n?t. M?n? (but n?t ?ll) ?f our ?r??ti??? ?r? m?r?l? ???uli?r t? ?ur ???i?t?, ?nd it i? easy t? l??? sight of th?t f??t. In r?minding us ?f it, th? th??r? does a ??rvi??.Fun?r?r? ?r??ti??? are one ?x?m?l?. Th? C?ll?ti?n?, according t? H?r?d?tu?, w?r? m?n who eat their f?th?r? a shocking idea, t? u? ?t least. But eating the flesh of th? d??d could be understood as a ?ign ?f respect. It ??uld b? taken ?? a ??mb?li? ??t that ????: W? wish thi? ??r??n? spirit t? dwell within us. Perhaps thi? w?? th? und?r?t?nding ?f the Callatians.On ?u?h a way ?f thinking, burying th? d??d ??uld b? ???n ?? an ??t of r?j??ti?n, and burning th? ??r??? ?? ???itiv?l? ???rnful. If thi? i? h?rd t? im?gin?, th?n we m?? need to have ?ur imaginations ?tr?t?h?d. Of ??ur?? we m?? f??l a vi???r?l r??ugn?n?? ?t the id?? of eating hum?n fl??h in any ?ir?um?t?n???.But wh?t ?f it?Thi? repugnance m?? b?, ?? th? r?l?tivi?t? ???, ?nl? a m?tt?r ?f wh?t is customary in ?ur ??rti?ul?r society.Th?r? ?r? m?n? other m?tt?r? that we tend t? think ?f in t?rm? ?f ?bj??tiv? right ?nd wr?ng th?t are r??ll? n?thing m?r? than social conventions. Should w?m?n ??v?r th?ir br???t?? A publicly exposed br???t i? ???nd?l?u? in ?ur society, whereas in other cultures it i? unr?m?rk?bl?.Obj??tiv?l? speakin g, it i? n?ith?r right n?r wr?ng. Th?r? i? not objective r????n wh? ?ith?r ?u?t?m is b?tt?r. Cultural R?l?tivi?m b?gin? with the v?lu?bl? in?ight th?t m?n? ?f ?ur practices ?r? lik? thi?; th?? are ?nl? ?ultur?l products.Then it g??? wr?ng b? inferring that, because some ?r??ti??? ?r? lik? thi?, all mu?t b?.Th? ????nd lesson h?? t? d? with k???ing ?n ???n mind. In the course of growing u?, ???h of u? has ???uir?d ??m? ?tr?ng f??ling?: W? have learned t? think ?f ??m? t???? of conduct ?? ?????t?bl?, ?nd ?th?r? we h?v? learned to r?j??t. O????i?n?ll?, we m?? find th??? feelings challenged.W? may ?n??unt?r someone who ?l?im? th?t our f??ling? ?r? mistaken. For example, w? m?? have b??n t?ught that homosexuality i? immoral, and we may f??l quite un??mf?rt?bl? around gay ????l? and ??? them as alien ?nd different.N?w ??m??n? ?ugg??t? th?t thi? may be a mere ?r?judi??; th?t th?r? is n?thing ?vil ?b?ut homosexuality; th?t g?? ????l? ?r? ju?t ????l?, like ?n??n? ?l??, who h????n, thr?ugh n? ?h?i?? ?f their own, t? be attracted to others ?f th? same ??x.But b???u?? we feel so ?tr?ngl? about the matter, we may find it hard to t?k? this seriously. Ev?n after w? li?t?n t? the ?rgum?nt?, w? m?? ?till h?v? the un?h?k?bl? f??ling that homosexuals mu?t, ??m?h?w, b? ?n un??v?r? lot.Cultur?l Relativism, b? ?tr???ing th?t ?ur m?r?l vi?w? ??n reflect the prejudices ?f our society, ?r?vid?? ?n antidote f?r this kind ?f d?gm?ti?m. Wh?n h? tells the story ?f the Gr??k? and Callatians, H?r?d?tu? adds:F?r if anyone, n? m?tt?r wh?, w?r? given th? ????rtunit? of ?h???ing fr?m ?m?ng?t ?ll the n?ti?n? ?f th? w?rld th? set ?f b?li?f? which h? thought b??t, h? w?uld inevitably, ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n of th?ir r?l?tiv? m?rit?, ?h???? th?t ?f his ?wn ??untr?. Ev?r??n? with?ut ?x???ti?n believes hi? ?wn n?tiv? ?u?t?m?, ?nd the religion h? w?? brought up in, to b? the b??t.R??lizing thi? can result in ?ur h?ving m?r? open mind?. W? ??n ??m? to und?r?t?nd th?t ?ur f??ling? are n?t n??????ril ? ??r???ti?n? ?f th? truth, they m?? be n?thing more than th? r??ult of cultural ??nditi?ning.Thu? when w? hear it ?ugg??t?d that ??m? elements ?f ?ur social ??d? i? not really th? b??t, and w? find ?ur??lv?? in?tin?tiv?l? resisting th? ?ugg??ti?n, we might stop ?nd r?m?mb?r thi?. Th?n w? may be m?r? open t? di???v?ring the truth, whatever th?t might b?.W? ??n understand the appeal ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m, then, even though th? th??r? has ??ri?u? ?h?rt??ming?. It i? ?n attractive th??r? because it is b???d ?n a g?nuin? insight th?t many ?f the ?r??ti??? and attitudes w? think ?? n?tur?l ?r? r??ll? only cultural ?r?du?t?.M?r??v?r, keeping this insight firmly in vi?w i? im??rt?nt if w? want t? ?v?id arrogance and have ???n minds.Th??? ?r? im??rt?nt points, n?t t? b? t?k?n lightl?. But w? ??n accept th??? ??int? with?ut g?ing on t? ?????t th? wh?l? theory.“Europes gr??t??t ?r?bl?m is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. This h?? l?d t? a ?itu?ti?n wh?r? Eur????n? n? l?ng?r know what they should b? ?r ?ud of ?nd wh? th?? r??ll? ?r? because a so-called lib?r?l ?nd l?fti?t-im????d ??n???t ???? th?t ?ll ?ultur?? ?r? the ??m?” G??rt Wild?r?

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Essay on Creative Writing Dragons Throttle - 821 Words

* * * * Dialing the number on speaker phone, what have I gotten myself into? I thought, and on the second ring, â€Å"Hello, may I speak to Bradley Callahan?† â€Å"This is Bradley. How can I help you, ma’am.† â€Å"I am calling from Wood Works Wonder. This is Clareese Alana.† â€Å"Yes, Miss Alana. I’ve been waiting for your call.† Bradley sounded like he was waiting for something all right. With a sexy, almost familiar voice, and forgetting for a split second, this was a business call, and I said, â€Å"Mr. Callahan—† â€Å"Miss Alana, call me Bradley.† â€Å"Okay, Bradley, if you call me Clareese.† â€Å"Deal,† he said. â€Å"Bradley, as you must have heard, our product presenter will be replaced by me.† â€Å"Miss Clareese, nice†¦ sounds great. I mean — who better than you, ma’am,†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"Ma’am, I will be picking you up in my pick-up. Plenty of roo m there.† â€Å"A pick-up? Sir, in the south? What a shocker,† I said with a light chuckle. Oh shit! I haven’t met this man and I’m jokingly labeling... oh dear! â€Å"I was warned about you city†¦ people,† he laughed. â€Å"I like your sense of humor, Miss Clareese.† â€Å"Well†¦ let me have a minute to think about this. I don’t want to burden you. Besides, our company would furnish my hotel stay and flight.† â€Å"Say no more. My father and I would be honored to have you there, and the cabins are well-equipped with amenities.† Perhaps I sounded a tad rude, and he seemed rather polite. Maybe accepting his plan would have Saturday’s Expo run smoothly, and I would not disappoint. â€Å"I’m grateful and will accept the Callahan offer.† â€Å"I will pick you up, early tomorrow, Friday. Text me with the flight information. I’ve sent you an email with my cell number.† â€Å"Tomorrow? I was planning to get in on Saturday morning.† â€Å"Tomorrow early, Miss Clareese. Here down yonder,† he snickered, â€Å"life is reflective, and we folks don’t live by the New York minute.† â€Å"Bradley, I’m from Connecticut,† I said wryly, yet knowing I deserved his jab from my earlier profile comment. â€Å"I’ve had a great opportunity to have visited both, city to city and forty lightning minutes apart. Clareese, it’s best if you are well rested and settled in for

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Religious Liberation And The Puritans - 1409 Words

Religious liberation is very consequential today, but it was paramount to the Puritans years ago. The Puritans were seeking liberation for themselves and nobody else. Their posture transmuted when they peregrinate to what we know as America. The Puritans were being treated lamentably in Europe, but they still stood up for religious liberation. The Puritans were the reformers, or improvers, of the Church of England. They had no intentions, or desire, to dissever from the church. When the Church of England became corrupt, the Puritans decided they wanted to emasculate it up. When the Puritans decided to make this decision, they were mistreated for this. They began wanting religious liberation, however, when they moved far enough from the Church of England, they establish a regime that gave religious liberation. When they established a regime that gave religious freedom, the Puritans only gave to those who acceded with them. The Puritans suffered from harassment, but lived their religio n faithfully. When they suffered from harassment, this included torture, withal, and even painful death. The Puritans went through this torture just to remain true, or faithful, to the lord. Religious liberation is very paramount to America today, as it was years ago to the Puritans. The Puritans and Pilgrims are often misconstruing, but are far from the same people. One distinction between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the church. TheShow MoreRelatedEnlightenment and Puritans782 Words   |  4 PagesEnlightenment period, also known as The Age of Reason, was a period of social, religious, and political revolution throughout the 18th century which changed the thoughts of man during this â€Å"awakening† time. It was a liberation of ignorant thoughts, ideas, and actions that had broken away from the ignorant perception of how society was to be kept and obeyed thus giving little room for new ideas about the world. Puritan society found these new ideas of thought to be extremely radical in comparisonRead MoreThe Enlightenment Puritanism Essay807 Words   |  4 PagesEnlightenment period, also known as The Age of Reason, was a period of social, religious, and political revolution throughout the 18th cent ury which changed the thoughts of man during this â€Å"awakening† time. It was a liberation of ignorant thoughts, ideas, and actions that had broken away from the ignorant perception of how society was to be kept and obeyed thus giving little room for new ideas about the world. Puritan society found these new ideas of thought to be extremely radical in comparisonRead MoreDimmesdale Rapture1657 Words   |  7 PagesScarlet Letter, the Puritan minister Dimmesdale seems to find such a resolution for the inner torment he has imposed on himself in atonement for his affair with Hester. While Dimmesdale’s emotions escalate toward rapture at the suggestion of leaving his life of outward piety and private shame behind, he remains constrained by his past, both his moral foundation and the sin for which he is yet to take responsibility. Dimmesdale initially appreciates the fragile and limited liberation afforded by Hester’sRead MoreEssay about American History1625 Words   |  7 Pagesalmost 70 years later. In the lecture (Puritans Part1), it talks about â€Å"The Great Migration† in the 1630’s and 1640’s - leading over 14,000 Puritans to England. The Puritans sought ways to â€Å"purify† the English by teaching them, â€Å"To live simply and purely by the words of the Bible in law and behavior.† Lecture (Puritans Part 1). Some of the leaders such as Richard Mather (1596-1669) â€Å"A Puritan minister who founded a dynasty of Puritan leaders† Lecture (Puritans Part 1), taught this belief throughoutRead MoreImposition Of Purin Desires In The Scarlet Letter By Nathaniel Hawthorne1289 Words   |  6 Pagesdesires† (Crews), and the second being the imposition of Puritan ideals. The characters in the novel act in ignorance of passions strength on their psyche, and their decisions; which leads to a submission of the self. While, the inner world of the characters is of paramount importance, the way in which the story unfolds is only possible due to the setting in New England — a Puritan colony. The highly conservative, and suppressive Puritan does not allow for the characters to properly express themselvesRead MoreAnalysis Of Land Of The Free, Because The Brave 1492 Words   |  6 Pagesof the most important battles for freedom took place before the United States of America became the United States. These battles were fought not by soldiers, but by citizens whose rebellion allows Americans many of the freedoms they enjoy today. Religious tolerance, freedom for both sexes, as well as minority groups, and freedom of the press are just some of the benefits from these battles. Rebellion is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as â€Å"... action organized by a group of people who refuse toRead MoreThe Crucible: John Proctor - True Hero87 6 Words   |  4 PagesIn the play the crucible, Arthur miller uses the character of John Proctor who, residing in hysteria-shaken Puritan Salem, rises beyond the hysteria and proves himself a true hero through his heroic virtues, challenging of authority and power, self-sacrifice and self-realisation. Proctor is the only individual willing to question the puritan belief system. He believes that no man should have control over the life of another. Only God has the power to judge and condemn. Therefore, choosing the moreRead MoreThe Scaffold Scenes in Nathaniel Hawthrone ´s The Scarlet Letter791 Words   |  3 Pagesthroughout the work. The scaffold scenes signify religious and moral ideas, such as sinfulness, the spiritual figures the characters each portray, and the character development achieved by public and private absolution. The first scaffold scene begins the novel. In chapters two through three, the protagonist Hester Prynne stands on the scaffold, bearing a scarlet â€Å"A† and a child at her breast as signs of her adultery. She is interrogated and lectured by the Puritan ministers of the town, including ArthurRead MoreThe 17th Century Puritan Influence on the Writings of Thomas Paine1578 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿Common Knowledge: 17th Century Puritan Influence in Common Sense There can be little doubt as to the fact that Thomas Paine was one of the most incisive minds of the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that began in Europe and quickly spread to the surrounding continents including the United States of America, where Paine immigrated to. The embracing of concepts such as Deism and other ideas that favored mans prowess and knowledge over the traditional influence of a divine power during theRead MoreTheme Of Betrayal In The Crucible1436 Words   |  6 Pagescomprehension of his love for her. It could also had even been that he know it would make his wife suspicious. â€Å"They are not only the source of betrayal, guilt, and self-destructive fragmentation but are also the genesis of blessedness, sensual liberation, and generativity.† (Alter para.3) Miller sets both his male and female characters up for them to be the source of betrayal. In The Crucible, the females play a bigger role than the males. They have more of an consequence on mal es than males have

Vocabulary Free Essays

string(175) " is a very learner-centered activity with the effectiveness of the learner’s strategies depending on his/her attitude and motivation towards new vocabulary acquisition \(p\." 3 Developing Vocabulary in Second Language Acquisition: From Theories to the Classroom Jeff G. Mehring Abstract This paper examines the theories behind vocabulary acquisition in second language learning in order to put these theories into practice in a class. Learning vocabulary is an ongoing process which requires systematic repetition to help students learn, especially low context vocabulary. We will write a custom essay sample on Vocabulary or any similar topic only for you Order Now Students can retain the vocabulary they find useful and relevant to their subject matter by learning vocabulary through context, cooperative learning, and using technology. Results from an action research project will be reported. Introduction Until recently vocabulary had been widely overlooked in the ESL/EFL classroom. Maiguashca (1993) stated that teaching or studying grammar is based on a set of rules with a coherent structure which students follow or remember, but the same is not true of vocabulary (p. 91). Within the last few years, vocabulary has become viewed as an important aspect in second language learning, in fact, many believe just as important as the main skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Nation (as cited in Nation and Waring, 1997) explained, â€Å"Vocabulary knowledge enables language use, language use enables the increase of vocabulary knowledge, knowledge of the world enables the increase of vocabulary knowledge and language use and so on† (p. 6). This contextualized approach to learning vocabulary will help students increase their vocabulary though authentic interaction. In this paper, I will examine the theories behind vocabulary acquisition and some results when they were put into practice during my student teaching. Theoretical Concepts Building vocabulary is extremely important for success in undergraduate or graduate studies. Nation and Waring (1997) reported that 5-year-old native English speakers beginning school will have a vocabulary of around 4,000 to 5,000 word families, adding roughly 1,000 word families a year until graduating from university with a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families (p. 7). Bauer and Nation (as cited in Nation and Waring) defined a word family as the base word, its inflected forms, and a small number of regular derived forms (p. 7). This means that students such as those in the English Foundations Program (EFP) at Hawai‘i Pacific University (HPU) have an enormous challenge ahead of them, considering that their previous schooling was in their L1, not English. If one uses Nation and Waring’s statement that native speakers have a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families at the time of university graduation, non-native speakers, before finishing EFP 1310, an advanced-level class in the EFP, and entering the undergraduate program, would have to increase their vocabulary from between 5,000 to 15,000 word families, depending on their previous English language studies. The good news is that according to Jamieson (as cited in Nation and Waring), once ESL students enter a school where English is the primary language, their vocabulary grows at the same rate as native speakers, around 1,000 word families a year; however, the initial gap never closes (p. 7). Understanding where ESL students are starting from will help in providing the vocabulary needed in order for them to improve and catch up. Learning vocabulary is an ongoing process that takes time and practice. Nakata (2006) acknowledged that vocabulary acquisition requires continual repetition in order for effective vocabulary learning (p. 9). Vocabulary acquisition is not something a student can spend time learning or memorizing, like grammar, and be successful. Acquisition requires the learner to be disciplined, spending time each day working on words he/she does not know in order for 4 learners to remember high frequency words and put them into their long term memory, Nation and Waring stated th at learners need to encounter the word multiple times in authentic speaking, reading, and writing context at the student’s appropriate level (p. 8). Developing lessons which allow the student to encounter new words multiple times, allowing them to put the new words into his/her long term memory can be time consuming. Developing word lists from the context of the lesson can reduce the work load, enabling the student to encounter the word multiple times through reading, listening, and speaking. Learning new vocabulary through context also helps the student understand the word’s correct usage and prevents students from making sentences from dictionary definition such as, There is a large cleavage between the rich and poor in America. Learning new words from a word list is much different from learning them in the context of a sentence or story. Yongqi Gu (2003) stated that learning new words through context is only one step students may use, and that students should think meta-cognitively and learn new words within the context of where they appear. (p. 14). To help the student learn the important words from the context of a lesson a teacher needs to focus on low context words, which necessitates a second distinction: high frequency and low frequency words. Nation (2005) defined high frequency words as words that occur quite frequently in the language, such as the, a, man, and woman. High frequency words occur so regularly in daily conversation that if students understand these words, they are able to write and speak in comprehensible English. Low frequency words, as described by Nation, are words that deal more with academic studies, words that appear throughout all academic texts and courses, but not very often in day to day speech, such as formulate, index, and modify (p. 48). This helps ease the burden a teacher has when trying to understand what words students understand; however, low frequency words are the more difficult aspect for teachers to teach and learners to understand. Creating vocabulary lists from the students’ textbooks and presenting these words through context in the lesson should help them to retain and use the new vocabulary. It will also carry through that students learn vocabulary better when they find the items to be useful and are able to put the new words into use more often while they study. Vocabulary, like other aspects of language learning, can be facilitated when done through cooperative learning. Yongqi Gu (2003) pointed out that vocabulary acquisition is a very learner-centered activity with the effectiveness of the learner’s strategies depending on his/her attitude and motivation towards new vocabulary acquisition (p. You read "Vocabulary" in category "Papers" 2). This is true because the main motivational learning factor must come from the student, but when learning vocabulary in a cooperative learning environment it allows students to learn from peers closest to them. Murphey and Arao (2001) pointed out that students felt more relaxed and learned more from peers since they saw that making mistakes is acceptable, having goals is good, and learning English can be fun (p. 2). So, even though vocabulary acquisition is a learner-centered activity in regards to studying and being disciplined to set goals, when done in collaboration with peers students may enjoy the activity more, learning more vocabulary in the end. Understanding that vocabulary learning is an ongoing process, that learning new vocabulary through context, and learning new vocabulary can be done cooperatively are what guided the classroom practices below. Vocabulary Development in Classroom Practices Context The course in which vocabulary development in line with the above theoretical concepts was implemented was EFP 1310 College Listening Skills, an advanced course in listening and note-taking. It stressed comprehension of classroom discussions and lectures, as well as a variety of other media presentations. The class was taught by two instructors: Dr. Hanh Nguyen as the lead teacher and myself as a student teacher. Together we worked to develop the students’ vocabulary in class. In this class there were 5 eighteen students, eleven females and seven males. Of the eleven females, seven were Taiwanese, one Belarusian, one Japanese, one Chinese, and one Indonesian. Of the seven males, three were Korean, two Japanese, one Taiwanese, and one Serbian. One male student was repeating this class for the second time. For two of the males and three of the females, this was their first English language class at a university. The average number of years spent studying English in the student’s home country was 6. 2 years and in the US, just over one month. explained that Test Your Word Level is adapted for the web from Paul Nation and Batia Laufer’s word levels tests, developed for learners with vocabularies of different sizes and types, with the 1,000 to 10,000 most frequent English words (p. 2). At the 1,000 word level, the items are multiplechoice and based on either pictures or short sentences. Learners check their answers and move on to a second test at a higher level, (80% or higher to move up), or moved down to a lower level, depending on their score. Assessing the student’s vocabulary level in the beginning of the semester was needed to set a starting point. It also helped students understand where they were and where they needed to go in order to do well in undergraduate studies. All of the students assessed in the EFP 1310 class scored in the 2,000 level except three students who were assessed at the 3,000 level. This means that their vocabulary level was between 2,000 and 5,000 word families, whereas their native-speaking counterparts would have around 15,000 word families. The second activity required students to learn three new words each week. The first time this class was taught each week students were required to write three new words in a journal along with a definition for each word and three example sentences using the word in context. They could pick these words from three sources: the next level up from the website where they had their level assessed, words from their textbook, and words from the AWL provided by the teacher. The website informed the students at what level they were assessed; then the students picked words from the level above that, studied them, and hopefully did better on the exam at the end of the semester. For example, students who were assessed at the 2,000 level would then study words from the 3,000 level to improve their vocabulary. If they did not want to do this, they could choose vocabulary words from the new vocabulary section listed at the beginning of each chapter of the textbook. Their last choice, if they did not wish to do the other two, was the AWL provided by the teachers. This list was prepared by examining the lectures in the text- Vocabulary Development Activities As mentioned earlier, Nation and Waring stated that learners need to encounter a word numerous times in order to use it properly. Building vocabulary is an ongoing process, and I believe good progress was made during the semester. The biggest obstacles encountered were the limited time and the number of words students had to learn in order to be well-prepared for undergraduate studies. Students now understood the importance of a large vocabulary and the amount of work they needed to put forth in obtaining it. In order to build the students’ vocabulary, and help close the vocabulary gap as much as possible, we carried out the following steps: (a) Students assessed their present vocabulary level, a starting point had to be determined so progresses could be assessed, (b) students learned three new words each week, getting the students motivated and changing their attitude on learning vocabulary, (c) the teachers created an academic word list (AWL) xtracted from the lectures and the textbook, developing vocabulary that the students would learn in the context of the lectures and use in the class discussions that followed, and (d) the students assessed their vocabulary at the end of the semester to see if they made any progress. To see their progress would motivate the students to continue the learning process. To begin with, the students needed to assess their pr esent vocabulary level. To do this, students visited http://www. lextutor. a and took a vocabulary test to determine their present level. Sevier (2004) 6 book, pulling out the academic words, and putting them on a piece of paper to be given to the students. Some of the words on this list were the same as the words from the new vocabulary section of the textbook. Getting the students to learn three new words each week posed the most difficult task. Students did not have these lists checked every week, but at the mid-term and final exams, so a few students quickly created these books just before this time period. At first it was planned to have each student post his/her three new words on WebCT so they could be checked more regularly and other classmates could learn from other student’s words. After this plan was put to a vote in class, the students decided to place their vocabulary words in a notebook and turn the notebook in before the mid-term and final exams. Learning from mistakes, we feel that it would have been better to check their vocabulary notebooks weekly, or have students post their new words on WebCT to help them acquire more low-context vocabulary, thus creating an even better activity for the class. To overcome these weaknesses, when I had the opportunity to teach the class again in the following semester (now as the sole teacher), students were required to post their three new words on WebCT instead of in a journal. They could choose the words from the same areas described above, but each week instead of writing them in a journal they needed to post them on WebCT for the teacher and classmates to see. The first reason was because the previous semester some students did not keep their journal regularly, only making the journal the day before it was due. The second reason was so classmates could learn from each other, near peer role modeling, and the teacher could use the words students were posting as part of the vocabulary section of the test. Students seemed to have taken a stronger interest in learning new vocabulary by transferring words they need to learn into a vocabulary journal or flash cards to help them study. Whether this process is successful or not will be seen at the end of the semester when the students take the vocabulary exam again to see their progress. The third activity was to provide lists of words for the AWL that appeared in the lectures in the textbook. Since EFP 1310 is an advanced course in the EFP program, and after this course most students enter undergraduate studies, the AWL is the appropriate list for this class. If it were a lower level class, lower levels of vocabulary would have been used. By pulling out the contextualized vocabulary from each lesson, we were hoping not only to increase the student’s vocabulary but also make the lectures more comprehensible. I helped with scanning and running each lecture through â€Å"RANGE† a software program developed by Nation (2005). This program allowed me to create a contextualized AWL specifically for our class, focusing on the vocabulary from the given lectures. Nation and Waring (1997) developed three levels of vocabulary lists: level 1 is the first 1,000 word families, level 2 is the second 1,000 word families, and level 3 is the university word list (UWL) or AWL (p. 14). RANGE is used to create word lists based on frequency and is useful for seeing what low frequency words are contained in a paper, technical information note, or a text aimed at foreign readers. It creates three ready-made base lists. Figure 1 shows an example of a lecture that was run through RANGE. The first includes the most frequent 1,000 words of English. The second includes the next 1,000 most frequent words, and the third includes words not in the first 2,000 words of English but which are frequent in upper secondary school and university texts from a wide range of subjects. All three base lists include the base forms of words and derived forms; thus, the first 1,000 words consist of around 4,000 forms or types. 7 Figure 1. An example of RANGE analysis output (see the Appendix for the sample text of this analysis) Tables Table 1 Three Base Lists Created from RANGE Software Program Types found in base list one Type a all also and bank business employees Range 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Freq 9 2 1 3 2 13 2 F1 9 2 1 3 2 13 2 Types found in base list two Type competition critical hurt lot rush Range 1 1 1 1 1 Freq 1 1 1 3 1 F1 1 1 1 3 1 Types found in base list three Type affect community factors financing investigate obtain project range require Range 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Freq 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 F1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 After scanning each lecture and running it through the program, we pulled out only the level 3 words, the AWL, and put them into a word document. Before each lecture, the teacher printed out the appropriate AWL and gave it to the students to prepare them for the lecture. This practice was inspired by the notion that new words are best learned in context, or as Sternberg claimed, â€Å"Vocabulary using context is the most effective, or even a relatively effective, way of teaching that vocabulary† (p. 89). Since students had the chance to study and understand the vocabulary before listening to the lecture, we aimed to help them to concentrate on the content of the lecture and hear the vocabulary being used in context. Extracting the high context vocabulary from the lectures was a great way to focus on the content words from the lessons so students would be using them regularly in class, hopefully committing them to long term memory. It also saved the teachers a lot of time by not having to read the lectures and pull the vocabulary out. This allowed more time to focus on presentation of the lessons and vocabulary. The final activity took place at the end of the semester when students revisited the website, http://www. lextutor. ca, and had their vocabulary assessed a second time to see if it had grown. All of the students scored at the same level from the beginning of the semester, except one student who scored higher. The use of the same exam at the end of the semester gave validity to their scores since the level of the test did not change. Even though most students scored at the same level in the end, I do not believe that the vocabulary learning activities done in class failed. One level contains roughly 4,000 word forms and types, so a student may have tested into the lower end of level 2,000 at the beginning of the semester, and tested at the same level but toward the higher end at the completion of the semester. Since the test does not show this in more detail, it is difficult to know if the students have or have not made some progress. Conclusion Vocabulary acquisition has become an extremely important part of second language acquisition, and teachers cannot rely on students acquiring the needed vocabulary just through interaction with the language. I always understood that vocabulary was important in second language learning, but understanding what words to teach and in what manner have helped me to better plan my lessons so students can acquire the necessary vocabulary. Students need to be taught vocabulary in context so that they can retain the words and use them more frequently. Learning how the computer can help to develop word lists from the student’s textbooks has enabled me to focus on the words that were necessary in each lesson. Allowing the students to use the new vocabulary during the course of the lesson should help them retain it in their long term memories. Using a computer program to assess the student’s present vocabulary level also helped me to see what words needed to be taught to help students progress or catch up. In the end, however vocabulary is presented to the students, like all materials, it must be in appropriate situations, giving them the chance to use the vocabulary and build upon their language repertoire. 9 References Cobb, T. (1999). The compleat lexical tutor (Version 4. 5) [Computer software]. University of Quebec at Montreal. Maiguashca, R. U. (1993). Teaching and learning vocabulary in a second language: Past, present and future directions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 83-100. Murphey, T. , Arao, H. (2001). Reported belief changes through near peer role modeling. TESL-EJ, 5(3). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://wwwwriting. berkeley. edu/TESLEJ/ej19/a1. html Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learning for English vocabulary learning: Towards improvement of the low-first method derived from the reactivation theory. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 3-18. Nation, P. , Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt M. McCarthy (Eds. , Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http:// www1. harenet. ne. jp/~waring/papers/ cup. html Nation, P. (2005). Range and frequency instructions [Computer software]. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www. vuw. ac. nz/lals/staff/paul -nation/nation. aspx Nation, P. (2005). Teaching vocabulary. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 47-54. Sevier, M. (2004). The compleat lexical tutor, v. 4. TESL-EJ, 8(3). Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://wwwwriting. berkeley. edu/TESLEJ/ej31/m2. tml Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from content. In M. G. McKeown M. E. Curtis (Eds. ), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yongqi Gu, P. (2003). Vocabulary learning in second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www-writing. berkeley. edu/ TESL-EJ/ej26/a4. html 10 Appendix Sample text for RANGE analysis example Starting Your Own Business When starting your own business, it is important that you put a lot of thought into what you are going to do. 0-85% of all business will fail, so the first point is to start with something you know well. Study what the kind of store you want to open. If it is a retail store, then look around. Do you see someone else selling what you plan to sell? How many possible competitors do you s ee? The next step to plan: There are two reasons for business planning. One is that it makes the entrepreneur investigate where he will open his business and what factors could affect his business. Second, a business plan will also help the entrepreneur obtain financing from a bank. All banks will require a business to make sure enough thought and planning have gone into the project before the banks gives any money. Looking at the first point: By looking at your possible market from a business person’s point of view, you may look with a more critical eye. You don’t want to rush into something where you could lose a lot of money. Possible factors that could affect your business range from employees, to possible growth of the community, to your competition. If there are not a lot of people living around your business, where will your employees come from? Is the community going to grow where you plan to open your business or is it shrinking? If it is shrinking will that hurt your business? The second point is more for the bank. They like to see that you have thought through many of the possibilities that could affect your business. They want to see that you know what your expenses will be, how well you know your product, and how much money you think you can make selling your product. (Prepared by Jeff G. Mehring, 2005) How to cite Vocabulary, Papers

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Stranger Philosophy Essays - Philosophy, Absurdist Fiction

Stranger Philosophy "It has been said that Camus '?was haunted with the notion that our world is a universe which has no place for us, in which our life makes no sense?" The Stranger reflects this philosophy in a myriad of ways. Mr. Meursalt is the main character. He seems to live in his own world, socializing with others, but not caring too deeply about what happens in his life. For example, when his mother died, his thoughts were, "Mother died today. Or, maybe yesterday; I can't be sure" (Pp. 1) He did not have any extreme feelings about her death; he just accepted it and decided that is was what was supposed to happen. He kept himself busy indulging himself in creature comforts like smoking, drinking, and sex. His girlfriend, Marie, wanted him to marry her, and his reply was that if she wanted to get married they would. His reflections about it were, "Marie came that evening and asked me if I'd marry her. I said I didn't mind; if she was keen on it, we'd get married." (Pp. 52) He didn't seem to care one way or the other. His life was full of existentialism, for he believed that life just happened, nothing you could do would change the future, and that everything happened for a reason. At several parts in the book, Meursalt observes his neighbor walking his dog. Salamano would beat his dog, it would run ahead, and the man would beat and swear at it again. Everyday it was the same thing. One day, Meursalt came across Salamano in the hall. Salamano was all distraught because his dog ran away. Meursalt could not understand this philosophy because he thought the man hated his dog. Why would he be worried about it? At the end of the story when Meursalt was going to be executed, he pondered his fate. He seemed to extricate pleasure from the thought of everyone shouting at him with all the bitterness and hate that had built up inside of them. At the same time, he didn't seem to worry too much that he was going to. He refused to see the priest before his execution because he felt that he had done nothing wrong when he shot an innocent man in the street.

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Free Essays on The Environment Around Us

The environment around us controls who we are, what we do, and how we act. The individual may have a slight control of what they do but the over looking factor in them is the environment they are put in. We learn what to do and how to change our behavior due to what the environment puts forth. Free will does not exist in the world that we live in today. Free will is only an illusion that people believe that have. When one looks at life, external forces on their life control them. You can tell this by how a person will change when they are put in a totally different environment then they are used to. In schools the teacher is who conditions kids what they are going to be able to do and how they are going to be able to act. We as behaviorists believe that in a classroom that the teacher should teach with reinforcement. This will shape the kids to do what they are supposed to. With giving reinforcement the kids will learn material matter even if they do not want to learn it or believe t hat can’t learn it. We behaviorists are the opposites of existentialists who believe that free will is the most apparent thing in a individual. The alter of an environment will alter a person’s perception on the world and curriculum. That is why behaviorists believe that school officers should make the curriculum. The student learns what higher officials put forth; the student has no say in what they want to learn. Environment the main part of life and the main part of the making of an individual is critical to one’s attitude and look at life also including school subject matter.... Free Essays on The Environment Around Us Free Essays on The Environment Around Us The environment around us controls who we are, what we do, and how we act. The individual may have a slight control of what they do but the over looking factor in them is the environment they are put in. We learn what to do and how to change our behavior due to what the environment puts forth. Free will does not exist in the world that we live in today. Free will is only an illusion that people believe that have. When one looks at life, external forces on their life control them. You can tell this by how a person will change when they are put in a totally different environment then they are used to. In schools the teacher is who conditions kids what they are going to be able to do and how they are going to be able to act. We as behaviorists believe that in a classroom that the teacher should teach with reinforcement. This will shape the kids to do what they are supposed to. With giving reinforcement the kids will learn material matter even if they do not want to learn it or believe t hat can’t learn it. We behaviorists are the opposites of existentialists who believe that free will is the most apparent thing in a individual. The alter of an environment will alter a person’s perception on the world and curriculum. That is why behaviorists believe that school officers should make the curriculum. The student learns what higher officials put forth; the student has no say in what they want to learn. Environment the main part of life and the main part of the making of an individual is critical to one’s attitude and look at life also including school subject matter....

Monday, March 2, 2020

Gods and Goddesses of Norse Mythology

Gods and Goddesses of Norse Mythology When Ymir lived long agoWas no sand or sea, no surging waves.Nowhere was there earth nor heaven above.Bur a grinning gap and grass nowhere.- Và ¶lusp-The Song of the Sybil Although we know a little from observations made by Tacitus and Caesar, most of what we know of Norse mythology comes from Christian times, beginning with the Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson (c.1179-1241). Not only does this mean the myths and legends were written after the period when they were routinely believed, but Snorri, as is to be expected, occasionally intrudes his non-pagan, Christian worldview. Types of Gods The Norse gods are divided into 2 major groups, the Aesir and Vanir, plus the giants, who came first. Some believe the Vanir gods represent an older pantheon of the indigenous people whom the invading Indo-Europeans encountered. In the end, the Aesir, the newcomers, overcame and assimilated the Vanir. Georges Dumezil (1898-1986) thought the pantheon reflected the typical pattern of Indo-European gods where different divine factions hold different societal functions: military,religious, andeconomic. Tyr is the warrior god; Odin and Thor divide the functions of the religious and secular leaders and the Vanir are the producers. Norse Gods and Goddesses - VanirNjà ¶rdFreyrFreyjaNannaSkadeSvipdag or HermoNorse Gods and Goddesses - AesirOdinFriggThorTyrLokiHeimdallUllSifBragiIdunBalderVeViliVidarHà ¶dMirmirForsetiAegirRanHel The Gods Home Norse gods dont live on Mt. Olympus, but their abode is separate from that of humans. The world is a circular disk, in the center of which is a concentric circle surrounded by sea. This central portion is Midgard (Mià °garà °r), the home of mankind. Across the sea is the home of the giants, Jotunheim, also known as Utgard. The gods home lies above Midgard in Asgard (sgarà °r). Hel lies below Midgard in Niflheim. Snorri Sturluson says Asgard is in the middle of Midgard because, in his Christianization of the myths, he believed the gods were only ancient kings worshiped after the fact as gods. Other accounts place Asgard across a rainbow bridge from Midgard. 9 Worlds of Norse Mythology The Gods Death The Norse gods are not immortal in the normal sense. In the end, they and the world will be destroyed because of the actions of the evil or mischievous god Loki who, for now, endures Promethean  chains. Loki is the son or brother of Odin, but only through adoption. In reality, he is a giant (Jotnar), one of the sworn enemies of the Aesir. It is the Jotnar who will find the gods at Ragnarok and bring about the end of the world. Norse Mythology Resources Individual Norse Gods and Goddesses Next page  Ã‚  Creation of the World   Page 1,  2