Relativism in a sentence

In general, anthropologists engage in descriptive relativism, whereas philosophers engage in normative relativism, although there is some overlap (for example, descriptive relativism can pertain to concepts, normative relativism to truth).

However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that positions truth as relative–i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism.

By the 1980s many anthropologists had absorbed the Boasian critique of moral relativism, and were ready to reevaluate the origins and uses of cultural relativism.

For anthropologists working in this tradition, the doctrine of cultural relativism as a basis for moral relativism was anathema.

Normative relativism (say, in regard to normative ethical relativism) therefore implies that things (say, ethical claims) are not simply true in themselves, but only have truth values relative to broader frameworks (say, moral codes).

On varieties of cultural relativism in anthropology, see Spiro, Melford E. (1987) "Some Reflections on Cultural Determinism and Relativism with Special Reference to Emotion and Reason," in Culture and Human Nature: Theoretical Papers of Melford E. Spiro.

Political critique On the one hand, many anthropologists began to criticize the way moral relativism, in the guise of cultural relativism, is used to mask the effects of Western colonialism and imperialism.

Political scientist Alison Dundes Renteln has recently argued that most debates over moral relativism misunderstand the importance of cultural relativism.

He insisted on the theme of searching for truth even with the forces of human reason, and for this he repeatedly spoke against relativism and its “dictatorship” in the present time.

Stephen Walt’s repellent relativism is a perfect reflection of the bizarre hunger on the part of those unwilling to face the true meaning of Hamas’s attack.

The theologian who would later capture the hearts of the faithful in both his active and retired ministry as shepherd of the universal Church was fully aware of the storm of relativism that engulfed us all.

He blamed “both sides” for the violence, and went on to flatly reject the idea of removing Confederate statues, employing a not-so-deft piece of moral relativism: “George Washington was a slave owner.

He’s recycling a conservative complaint from the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s directed against the then-regnant relativism, epitomized by the popular exhortations to do your own thing and to let it all hang out.

The latter is actually good, and moral relativism is bad.

Maybe, if we could just understand a little more and judge a little less, there could be many more ways of monetising cultural relativism beyond arms sales and techno-collusion with the male guardianship system?

One need not homogenize diverse forms of Islamic belief to suggest that this kind of relativism is very new and very American.

It smacks of special pleading or relativism.

Relativism and totalitarianism, which combine to form much of the thrust of modern politics, reinforce each other.

This is the major problem since news then teeters dangerously towards relativism.

Although every decade has witnessed anthropologists conducting research in the United States, the very principles of relativism have led most anthropologists to conduct research in foreign countries.