Based on our textbook, the moral and intellectual precept of cultural relativism states that one should refrain from passing judgment on beliefs and actions that seem unusual or foreign. (Welsch, 2019, page 10) Cultural relativism is something I think is good. It enables us to comprehend the motivations behind other cultures' behaviors without passing judgment on them. Although I object to eating dogs, I am aware that it is prevalent in East Asia. Similarly, to how Jews and Muslims refrain from eating pork, so do we. We must comprehend how our civilizations differ from one another. Cultural relativism shouldn't, in my opinion, be used in every situation. Critical relativism should be used when determining if a certain cultural practice infringes on human rights. Critical relativism, according to our textbook, is the idea that one should only adopt a behavior or belief after attempting to comprehend it in its cultural and historical context (Welsch, 22019, p. 35). Human rights are described as "rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status" by the United Nations. Fundamental freedoms encompass liberation from slavery and torture, the right to life and liberty, the freedom of speech and thought, and the right to a job and an education, among other things (United Nations, n.d.). Cultural relativism should not be used if
any elements of culture infringe against any of the United Nations defined fundamental freedoms. Cultural relativism cannot be employed to excuse the mistreatment of people, such as ethnic cleansing, violence, or unequal mistreatment; rather, it should be utilized as a teaching tool.
