is always a bias argument whether it is a scholar writing about such a subject or the mere way of life of an indigenous tribe. One of the problems I have with this chapter and the way it is presented is ok…. the question in point is ” If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?” The way this question is portrayed makes it seem as if there is a fair dose of objectivity within it. However, the proceeding examples that are given ALL refer to minute tribes and indigenous cultures in the global world that conjure up not only indigenous groups but also industrialized countries and societies. Why would the first criticism shot be at these naturalistic oriented little, little societies making it seem like they are what is wrong with the world? If this is a serious ethical question at hand then by the definition of volume, those tribes of ten thousand people or less (not to mention a lot of them are extinct or soon to be extinct) should without a doubt not be the first ethical discussions.
One part of the Ruggiero’s chapter that I harmonized with is “(a) that a culture’s values, rituals, and customs reflect its geography, history, and socioeconomic circumstances and (b) that hasty or facile comparison of other cultures with one’s own culture tends to thwart scholarly analysis and produce shallow or erroneous conclusions.” Again, My problem is if one truly believes this, what is the point or what is the message trying to be relayed when subtly attacking the instituted laws of any culture. It is difficult for me to accept that an indigenous culture would not only give up their 3 year old but force him or her into a win or lose your life environment, but it is also disturbing to me on a much larger scale that the industrialized world beckons war and bloodshed as a means of resolving social and political issues.