The problem with judging another culture is that you do so based on the biases, predispositions, and ideologies that are inherent in your society (Croteau and Hoynes 60). Your mentality is oriented towards a particular way of thinking based on the history, traditions and cultural nuances that have developed in your country over time (Croteau and Hoynes 60). As such, there is a certain bias in how you will view other cultures since you will always do so through the socio-cultural influences that you have grown up with (Croteau and Hoynes 61).
While America is a great country and has a rich history of supporting freedom, democracy, and individual rights, it has also had a history of violence, discrimination, and environmental destruction. Most people fail to take this into consideration due to cultural relativism since they focus more on the positive rather than the negative aspects of their culture.
In fact, when viewing the cultural traditions and history of Canada and Denmark, both countries have much less violence, discrimination, and bloodshed associated with them. As such Americans do not have the right to morally judge another culture, since the history of the United States is not perfect. In fact, no society has the right to morally judge another based on their cultural history and ideologies.
Each country has their own unique histories and cultures and, as such, the definition of what can be considered as “moral” undergoes various iterations. However, this does not mean that there is no basis in which a judgment can be made. For example, the universal declaration of human rights outlines several inherent and inalienable rights that are a fundamental aspect of all individuals. The capacity of a country to adhere to these right, as a form of universal necessity for their citizens, can be used as a means of judgment and is often the measure by which countries are evaluated (Addo 601).
Limits of the Merits of Cultural Relativism
One of the limits to the merit of cultural relativism is associated with the concept of respecting other cultures. For instance, cultural relativism espouses that, due to the diversity of cultures around the world, there are different ideologies that have been created. As such, we should respect how various cultures choose to do certain actions. However, the problem with this is that particular actions cannot be considered as excusable under the concept cultural differences.
In Northeast Africa, there are cases of female genital mutilation which are done to limit the pleasure experienced by women during intercourse. In Saudi Arabia, women are treated as second-class citizens and have very few rights. This has resulted in numerous cases of domestic abuse which is accepted as being “normal” since men have a “right” to discipline their wives. These actions are clearly wrong and fall under the domain of universalism which states that people have rights which should not be violated regardless of the culture they belong to.
Cultural Values and Practices
Technically, there is nothing inherently wrong with practicing your own culture since it is an inherent aspect of who you are and the society that you came from. However, as the concept of universalism becomes more prevalent, and with it, the idea of inherent and inalienable rights, the concept of equal validity to all cultural values and practices becomes less acceptable.
As seen in the previous section, there are some cultural values and practices which violate the precepts of universalism (Etinski 37). Thus, the validity of cultural values and practices are increasingly being based on how much they adhere to universalism rather than how acceptable they are to society they originate from (Etinski 37).
Crossing the Line of Human Decency
One act that would fall under the line of crossing basic human decency would be to deny people the right to free speech. Freedom of expression is more than just a means for people to communicate ideas and concepts, it is a way for members of society to point out cases where the government is obviously wrong or outright abusing their power. By preventing people from expressing their right to free speech, a government would deny them the fundamental right to dictate how their society should be governed.
The problem with drawing the line when it comes to violations of this right is that the government does have the responsibility to ensure the continued existence of the state. This is why militaries and foreign policies are used since these are instruments to help the country survive. Unfortunately, since it is the government who draws the line and, as seen in NSA scandal exposed by Edward Snowden, sometimes it does not know where to stop. If the government cannot be trusted to draw the figurative “line in the sand” then who should be? In cases like this, the response should be from the citizens of a country who should demand the right to free speech so long as it is not something meant to maliciously defame others for no good reason.
Works Cited
Addo, Michael K. “Practice Of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies In The Reconciliation Of Cultural Diversity With Universal Respect For Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 32.3 (2010): 601. Print
Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. Experience Sociology: 2nd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education Create, 2015. Print.
Etinski, Rodoljub. “Cultural Relativism And Universalism Of Human Rights: An Attempt Of Legal Analysis. (Cultural Relativism And Universalism Of Human Rights: An Attempt Of Legal Analysis.).” Proceedings Of Novi Sad Faculty Of Law 43.1 (2009): 37. Print