1. Suppose that a list contains the values 20 44 48 55 62 66 74 88 93 99 at index positions 0 through 9. Trace the values of the variables….
What is accepted and even valued in one culture can be condemned and even punished in another.
In the 1930s and 1940s, anthropologist Ruth Benedict told the world that “normal” was relative to the culture in which a person lived. What is accepted and even valued in one culture can be condemned and even punished in another. What we call “cultural relativism” replaced the absolute moral standards and accompanying value judgments of the nineteenth century. The question for us today is, Has cultural relativism gone too far? A growing number of students, according to John Leo (U.S. News & World Report, 21 July 1997), seem unwilling to condemn human sacrifi ce, ethnic cleansing, and slavery because they believe no one has the right to criticize the morality of another culture. “Of course I dislike the Nazis,” one student said, “but who is to say they are morally wrong?” What do you think? Is everything culturally relative? Or are there some actions that should be prohibited and punished no matter where they occur? If there are some moral universals, who should decide what they are? Are they intuitively obvious? Can we all, for instance, agree that largescale genocide is wrong? Or are we prepared to consider mitigating circumstances even for the Holocaust? Are you willing to live in a world in which there are no moral standards and everything is culturally relative? At the other extreme, how do I prevent someone else’s moral code from making illegal what I choose to do with my own life (assuming that I injure no one else in the process)?