A Response and Connection to Something A Smart Guy Named James Wrote in the 90's

I would like to begin by stating that by reaching the second page of The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I had already outlined an entire “mini thesis-paper” about certain inconsistencies of Cultural Relativism, and its dangers within such a global world as our own.  It would be pointless to say then, that I was both delighted and disappointed at finishing the third page of the article: delighted to find that this Mr. James Rachels had stricken such a chord with me, and disappointed that an idea I was leading myself on to believe as “avant-garde” and “groundbreaking” was not going to impress the masses of devoted readers to my monthly blog quite as much as I had thought.  Either way, there is still ample material in my outline to inspire a decent amount of words that reflect an issue, and connection to society, in relation to The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.

I tell you people, I tell you that we live in an increasingly global world.  If you were not previously aware of this, I offer my deep condolences for not offering a spoiler alert.  In this global world, if societies cannot survive or function without certain aspects of human life, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism cleverly shows us that those societies that continue to exist must value these aspects.  When the lines between different societies blur, and cultural classification becomes more common, there arises the necessity to have common judgment for the participants in globalization.  How do you figure that out?  That is the issue. 

  Before we set in stone the rules for governing the world, let us consider what one man, James Rachels, has to say about an important feature of determining regulations; ethics.  The Challenge of Cultural Relativism stresses the fact that the underlying motives of varying customs and traditions turn out to be universal with some exceptions.  This article discusses the importance of these common moral codes among humans.  Humans, that from a relative view point, are innately not all that varied.  However, this article also warns of the dangers of assuming that all human preferences are based on some absolute rational standard.  Also, customs are many times cultural products; resulting from specific conditions and environments.  These are important to consider when contemplating international regulation (which is really just the grandchild of moral code and ethics).

     In order to promote order and civility (an aspect valued by most cultures because without it, they do not survive), in the new culture which is the world culture, international regulation and judgment must be specific enough to demote chaos, and yet general enough to suffice for the varying cultural conditions that persist.  We must take into consideration what can be learned from Cultural Relativism.  That is, with an open mind, those values which are common to the merging cultures of the world must take precedence.  Personally, I believe that deciding international regulations, like War Conventions and Human Rights, must also support humans and society as whole, not just certain individuals.

            Connections, associations, and differences between cultures are three elements that reign supreme in the world of International Relations, and ultimately, “Inter-individual Relations.”  As I plan to devote most of my life’s work to this field, it is important to me to understand the role Cultural Relativism plays [here].  Determining moral constants is a pretty beneficial next step, I would say. 

As of December 31, 2011 for me, it all boils down to this; that underneath it all Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens (for the most part).   And understanding is the first step to life where emotions are fully felt out, there is freedom to take advantage of that which is commonly felt as “good”, and happiness, peace, and prosperity dominate the masses.  We’re gettin’ there.