Cultural relativism is expressed and understood in different ways. Most often they understand him as a person’s dependence on the ethical views of the culture to which he belongs.
Yes, any of us grew up in a particular society, which has its own established system of views on the phenomena and objects of the world. A person begins to adhere to certain ethical and cultural principles, not for the reason that they became the subject of his quest, but for the reason that they are followed by everything around. Yes, we really take a lot from the society in which we receive education, grow, and develop. Cultural human rights are based on the fact that each of us has access to the cultural achievements of society, and can use them to a certain extent. Is aesthetic views determined by culture? In most cases, yes. For this reason, they cannot be called objectively true. Cultural relativism is based on the fact that one or another position is involuntarily imposed on a person, his views determine. In principle, there is nothing to worry about. The point is that the human rights problem is not affected, and a developed personality will be able to decide for itself what it needs.
It is worth noting that in antiquity (sometimes even nowadays), persons whose opinions differed from those of society were severely punished. Culturally non-deterministic views can indeed be perceived as hostile and aggressive in any situation. In any era, it was possible to observe criticism by people of their contemporaries.
Cultural relativism is understood in a slightly different way. In a sense, it is ethnocentrism. We are talking about a situation when an individual is fully convinced that his people's ideas about culture are the only true ones, and the beliefs of other peoples are absurd, which has nothing to do with reality. This is a kind of extreme.
Many scholars believe that ethnocentrism is the preaching of ignorance, intolerance, arrogance, and so on. This statement is due to the fact that many people are really ready to prove the correctness of the views of their people, even when it is proved that they are not true. A person who is not fanatical or even indifferent to the views of his society, in most cases, is ready to admit that the opinions of people of other nations on certain issues may be more correct.
Some thinkers suggested the existence of some kind of objective moral truth that exists in the form of pure knowledge. The bottom line is that this truth is one for all, that is, for any nation. Cultural relativism rejects the existence of such a truth. Its absence is explained by the fact that all views on morality are culturally determined, and the standard, on the basis of which one culture could prove that it is better than another, does not exist and will never exist.
Based on all of the above, it can be concluded: attempts to influence the beliefs of a representative of another culture are a gross violation of the rules of tolerance.
Cultural relativism is associated with some specific problems. One of them is based on the fact that today there is a propaganda of any person regardless of nationality, gender, profession and so on. In some countries, there is still oppression of people, which on the one hand can be recognized as barbarism, and on the other - the characteristics of a particular people. Does the whole world have to be tolerant of the fact that in some part of it humiliating someone's human dignity? Is third-party intervention acceptable? These questions are actually much more complicated than they seem. A clear answer to them still does not exist.
