Cultural relativism has the notion that ethical or moral systems, which change from one culture to another, are equally right and there is no system that is better than the rest. In this theory evil or good has no ultimate standard, therefore independent judgments on wrong and right are the society’s product. Moreover, every opinion that one has on ethics and morality are subject to each person’s cultural perspective. Overall, not a single ethical or moral system can be taken as the worst or best and not even a specific ethical or moral position can be actually regarded as wrong or right.
In the modern world cultural relativism has a wide position. Words like tolerance, acceptance, and pluralism have adopted meanings that are new, since the cultural boundaries have extended. Modern society has defined these notions enabling the justification of anything while using relativism as the scapegoat. Therefore, this introduces uncertainty and instability in regions that previously were considered settled.
Cultural relativism is totally impossible. This is clear in a sense that a community that holds to the idea of no definitive wrong or right, loses its capacity at all to make judgments. To support this look at the way `society tries to handle this contradiction. Tolerance has changed to mean agreement and support that is unconditional for all lifestyle and opinions. Those who are intolerant do not gain agreement or support and tolerance now becomes a definitive good.
Practically, cultural relativism can neither overwhelm logics’ boundaries nor overrule mankind’s inherent nous of morality. Out of instinct we definitely know the wrongness of something, therefore cultural relativists try to bend their ideologies to suit these needs. Affirming that specific actions are mostly right or mostly wrong is the same as creating rules as somebody moves.
What is the harm principle and does it truly safeguard individual liberty?
The Harm principle states that individual’s actions can be limited to prevent them from causing harm to other persons. On Liberty john Stuart mill argued and came up with this principle where he argues that power can only be exercised rightfully over any civilian is because their actions are causing harm to other people. Harm principle argues that no one can limit the freedom of an individual that is either moral or physical and it is not warrantied to do so. Therefore, acts by individuals that although cause harm to them themselves provided they do not interrupt or cause harm to others cannot be disrupted by authorities who adhere to this rule. This is proof enough that the liberty of an individual is safeguarded since they can do anything provided it does not affect others.
Applying the harm principle to the moral issue of pornography and censorship
Pornography is the open showing off of subject that is sexual with the main aim of sexual satisfaction. Censorship is the subdual of public communication or speech which is taken as sensitive, harmful, inconvenient, or objectionable as dogged by media outlet, government, or any other body that controls. Applying pornography and censorship to harm’s principle it depends on the issues raised that are fundamental about the issue and the grounds people take. As a result this takes a vie w in two different sides.
On one hand, if pornography does not in any way affect other people apart from the ones conducting it, then it is justified. In addition, from Harm’s law the ones conducting it liberal and free to do it. Therefore, no one can exert powers that are coercive to regulate the individual’s freedom. Normally this idea is supported by liberals who defend consenting adult’s freedom to consume and publish pornography. To them this is morally upright.
On the other hand, if pornography affects in any way other people, then it is subject to censorship. Therefore, this means that control bodies can exert powers that are coercive to regulate the individual’s freedom. This particularly applies when pornography affects society and children through its corrosion and corrupting effect on them. In this situation pornography causes harm to others since the explicit sexual content displayed, affects the minds of the children and surprisingly women.
With reference to Meese, his report covered details of porn and feminism. The report stresses that laws that are tough should be put in place against pornography. The report says that pornography seems to adversely affect the concept of the family and the value it has to society.
According to Wicclair, he argues that censoring pornography is negative. He asserts that everybody has a right to the freedom of expression that enables people explore various things. He argues that since pornography is an expression it should not be censored since there is freedom of expressing oneself. Moreover, he argues that people have differences in asserting what is humiliating or degrading to them. Therefore, without clear definitions of pornography it is hard to censor it.
Lastly, Susan Brison argues that pornography is not moral but not illegal. She is not for lawful censorship but at the same time she wants it. She says it causes harm to women through brutalization, increases rape chances, increases attitudes of sex in young men and boys.
Works Cited
Hahn, Robert. Conduct and constraints: testing the limits of the harm principle. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2002. Print.
Hunt, Robert C. Beyond relativism: comparability in cultural anthropology. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2007. Print.
