IndexIntroductionDefinition of Normative Cultural RelativismExploring Xiaorong's Critique of Normative Cultural RelativismConclusionBibliographyIntroductionNormative cultural relativism is a moral theory that views moral rights and wrongs as necessarily dependent on the moral norms of a particular society , culture or community. Therefore, one can simplify this to a simpler statement that a normative relativism “tells us how we should act.” Furthermore, this view is commonly associated with arguments that oppose moral universalism and relativists' insistence that we should refrain from making moral judgments about beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. In this essay I will define relativism in general, before focusing on normative cultural relativism, its merits as proposed by Xiaorong Li, and the opposing view expressed by Xiaorong Li, before discussing my position based on the merits of both arguments. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To successfully discuss normative cultural relativism, you need to discuss relativism in general, and cultural relativism in particular. As such, relativism is generally agreed upon, despite being widely used to describe equally broad concepts, describing views that hold that right and wrong, one's justification (and the process of justification) are the result of different experiences and are therefore limited to those who share similar experiences. As such, understanding someone else's opinions is only relevant to the extent that the required "framework" applies and, therefore, opinions cannot be analyzed and understood independently of circumstances, experience and point of view, provided by said experience, which brought to light opinions themselves (Baghramian & Carter, 2018). This understanding of relativism explains why this topic, in this case specifically cultural relativism, is controversial and relatively popular in our current globalized and intertwined world. Supporters of cultural relativism praise it as a way to advocate for tolerance and intercultural understanding. In contrast, opponents of this view target its alleged incoherence and lack of critical intellectual permissiveness (Baghramian & Carter, 2018). Normative Cultural Relativism DefinitionMoral, or normative, cultural relativism states that the norms people follow to establish their moral/ethical rights and wrongs are best understood by applying their experience, cultural context, and the environment in which they take shape . It goes beyond cultural relativism in that, as a normative theory, it considers interference and arguments put forward by individuals outside the community to be incorrect. According to Westacott (2019), this was originally presented as a way to oppose the "unconscious ethnocentrism that can lead social scientists to misunderstand the phenomena they are observing". Therefore, although ritual inflictions of pain may appear to be punishment with no purpose other than deterrence, they may in fact be seen as serving a different purpose by these communities. Furthermore, cultural relativists argue that a morally right, or expected, act in one culture could at the same time mean, or be seen as meaning, something entirely different in another culture. As such, one cannot apply one's culture to understand such acts due to their "different situational meanings". Therefore, since the meaning of each act differs,depending on the variables discussed above, this makes it impossible for two distinct communities/societies to be in conflict (Westacott, 2019). Exploring Xiaorong's critique of normative cultural relativism, Xiaorong Li argues that recognizing the importance of culture in shaping an individual's/community's moral values ​​and ethical principles does not undermine the existence of universal moral values ​​and ethical principles (2007). Xiaorong notes the universalist view of human rights proscribes some customs and traditions, such as honor killings, female circumcision, and self-flagellation, and this view is unrealistic to the extent that their universal implementation would essentially go against these same views. Furthermore, said author notes that these universalist views have developed within certain cultural traditions (i.e., Western traditions have moved away from still-practiced customs that would be antithetical to current Western norms), cultures that are distinct from those that still carry forward these customs and which evolved separately. Therefore, since current human rights principles protect freedom of expression and thought, they should allow for the cultural diversity and pluralism that have become prevalent in some parts of the world because the cultural factor in the formation of one's values ​​and principles cannot be ignored when attempting to take part in serious ethical discussions (Xiaorong, 2007). Since an individual's understanding of cultural relativism and universalism is shaped by his or her understanding of the concepts of culture, tradition, and community, it is necessary to first clearly define such terms and concepts to evaluate that understanding. Thus, Xiaorong (2007) argues for a “minimalist consensual view” of culture. This view, which holds that culture is a form of informal knowledge that is inherited and that shapes the traditions that are learned and practiced through socialization within a distinct community. This view combines the consensual traits of what Xiaorong considers "classical" and "contemporary" schools; therefore culture is not so definitively bound and homogeneous, as the classicists maintain, but neither is it so influenceable, heterogeneous and porous as the supporters of the contemporary school postulate. As such, the vision of culture espoused by Xiaorong maintains the definitive body which is counterintuitive to the vision of contemporary schooling because their thesis that culture is a “borderless, changing and internally divided body of knowledge would be too indefinite and amorphous to be an absolute "body", as well as giving culture a historical element absent in contemporary schools (Xiaorong, 2007). In addition to defining culture differently, Xiaorong (2007) postulates the existence of "paradoxes of culture", of which three are clearly defined: culture can be unique but allow overlap and compatibility with other cultures, culture can be uniform while internally it can allow for individualization within a community. Finally, culture can have its own history and origin while allowing for self-criticism (impossible in the traditional normative cultural relativist view) which leads to a possible transformation and integration of foreign cultural elements. Thus, normative cultural relativists argue that the independent origin and history of a culture makes it impossible for cross-cultural moral principles to exist. While traditional normative cultural relativists overemphasize cultural uniqueness and our inability to compare different cultures, traditional universalists often deny its existence. Therefore, the uniqueness of knowledge requires that there is no copy of it elsewhere, but they can occuroverlaps of knowledge and traditions while maintaining this uniqueness and can be commensurate. Likewise, cultural unity is not a necessary condition within a community for it to exist despite individual differences in interpretation and actions, because adversity (especially external) can produce the kind of unity that is evidence of existence of that community despite the fluidity of an individual's cultural heritage. identity (Xiaorong, 2007). This allows, according to Xiaorong, intercultural interactions because an internally divided group can find common ground with external actors. Finally, Xiaorong's (2007) third paradox (recognizing historical specificity while allowing for transformation) does not agree with the view that changes necessarily imply that culture has an enduring reality and that this is ephemeral/illusory. By defining culture in these terms, the author formulates two concepts that come together to form one's culture: cultural communities and cultural traditions. A cultural community is defined as one that shares an identity that allows for the social transmission and debate of identifiable knowledge while still allowing for fluidity, comparison, and individuality. Likewise, cultural traditions are formed by the paradoxes discussed above. Therefore, tradition as understood by Xiaorong (2007) is the complex set of rules, customs, symbols, practices and more that clash and compete leading to changes despite the set of shared beliefs and experiences inherited from that community. Through this long discussion of what constitutes culture, tradition, and community, Xiaorong (2007) attempts to understand the role of culture in setting ethical standards, how it shapes it, and whether/how it competes with other actors in justifying moral actions and judgments. He argues that his interpretation of culture has a dual role in shaping his views: simultaneously capable of explaining different positions due to internal debates/conflicts resulting from changing culture over time, and that culture is shaped and influenced by external factors associated with one's own culture and those of others outside the cultural community with which one identifies. This understanding leads to his conclusion that culture cannot be the cause of one's moral decisions due to the aforementioned roles it plays in shaping an individual. This is because the elements that make up culture (which Xiaorong found to be used interchangeably with culture itself), cultural tradition and community, do not provide the cause of one's moral value because individuals who share these two (tradition and community) are more profoundly influenced by their individual experiences rather than by two components of culture. Thus, despite two individuals being raised under a similar traditional interpretation of Islamic law, their personal views on the central tenets of their shared tradition may differ when it comes to the amputation of thieves or child marriage due to other more important impulses ( greed, survival instinct, carelessness, altruism, ...) exist outside of what one's culture may require. Similarly, membership in a community, as understood by Xiaorong (2007), cannot be linked to an individual's actions because cultural communities have a wide range of norms and experiences that may or may not align with one's community in general. Finally, Xiaorong (2007 ) returns to the normative element of cultural relativism, which implies that culture is impossible to study, evaluate and criticize because no argument for or against a particular culture would be valid under this prism. While descriptive cultural relativity allows. 151-172.