Words that carry weight - Emphasis

Words that convey weight Words that convey weight The words corpulent and stoutness may before long be untouchable at Liverpool City Council. The thought is to abstain from causing offense, however will they simply wind up weakening the message? The proposition, in the event that it proceeds, would see these words supplanted by the term undesirable load in any writing focused on kids. The thought originated from around 90 nine to multi year-olds of the Liverpool Schools Parliament, who consider utilizing to be as excessively adverse, and possibly debilitating for the youngsters it might depict. Its frequently a decent move to trade progressively clinical or language like words for ordinary options which are increasingly available to your crowd, however at times you hazard losing the full importance behind the first decision. Some consider this to be a stressing move: clinically, being stout is significantly more genuine than simply being overweight. This replacement is simply fudging the issue says Tam Fry, of the Child Growth Foundation. Lamentably some of the time schoolchildren must be shown the real factors of life. Tell us what you think. Is this a reasonable arrangement to secure youngsters, or just too PC?

Maillard Reaction and Why Foods Brown

Maillard Reaction and Why Foods Brown The Maillard response is the name given to the arrangement of concoction responses between amino acids and diminishing sugars that causes carmelizing of nourishments, for example, meats, breads, treats, and brew. The response is likewise utilized in dreary tanning formulas. Like caramelization, the Maillard response produces cooking with no catalysts, making it a sort of non-enzymatic response. While caramelization depends entirely on warming sugars, heat isn't really required for the Maillard response to happen and proteins or amino acids must be available. Numerous nourishments earthy colored because of a mix of caramelization and the Maillard response. For instance, when you toast a marshmallow, the sugar carmelizes, yet it likewise responds with the gelatin through the Maillard response. In different nourishments, enzymatic cooking further confounds the science. In spite of the fact that individuals have realized how to brown food basically since the revelation of fire, the procedure was not given a name until 1912, when French scientist Louis-Camille Maillard depicted the response. Science of the Maillard Reaction The particular synthetic responses that cause food to brown rely upon the compound piece of the food and a large group of different components, including temperature, sharpness, the nearness or nonappearance of oxygen, the measure of water, and the time took into consideration the response. Numerous responses are happening, making new items that themselves start responding. Several unique atoms are delivered, changing the shading, surface, flavor, and smell of food. As a rule, the Maillard response follows these means: The carbonyl gathering of a sugar responds with the amino gathering of an amino corrosive. This response yields N-subbed glycosylamine and water.The temperamental glycosylamine structures ketosamines through the Amadori modification. The Amadori improvement flags the beginning of the responses that cause browning.The ketosamine may respond to shape reductones and water. Earthy colored nitrogenous polymers and melanoidins might be created. Different items, for example, diacetyl or pyruvaldehyde may frame. In spite of the fact that the Maillard response happens at room temperature, heat atâ 140 to 165  °C (284 to 329  °F) guides the response. The underlying response between the sugar and the amino corrosive is supported under soluble conditions.

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong

Why ?ultur?l Relativism Is Wrong “Relativism, the id?? th?t truth i? a hi?t?ri??ll? ??nditi?n?d n?ti?n th?t does n?t transcend cultural b?und?ri??, has ?xi?t?d ?in?? the Greek ?r?, ??m? 2400 ???r? ago. R?l?tivi?m ??nt?nd? that ?ll truth i? r?l?tiv? ?x???t f?r th? claim th?t “truth is relative”. Dr. Edw?rd Younkins LET’S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING: WHAT IS CULTURE?M??t tim??, when th? ?u??ti?n ‘what is culture’ is ??k?d, it’s almost certainly diffi?ult t? ?n?w?r because w? probably have an idea wh?t culture is all about, but we are n?t just ?bl? to put it in exact w?rd?.So let’s g? like thi?W? ?ll kn?w that man is a ???i?l ?r??tur?, coming together to form communities in ?rd?r t? ?urviv?; even ?? far back ?s the Homo ???i?n? whi?h was n??rl? 250,000 ???r? ?g?.As a result of living t?g?th?r, they f?rm common habits ?nd b?h?vi?r? ranging fr?m specific m?th?d? of ?hildr??ring t? ?r?f?rr?d t??hni?u?? to obtain f??d.For example, in m?d?rn-d?? P?ri?, many ????l? ?h?? daily ?t ?utd??r m?rk?t? t? ?i?k u? wh?t they n??d for th?ir ?v?ning m??l, buying cheese, m??t, ?nd v?g?t?bl?? fr?m diff?r?nt ????i?lt? ?t?ll?.And in Canada, m?j?rit? of ????l? shop ?n?? a week ?t ?u??rm?rk?t?, filling l?rg? ??rt? t? th? brim. Every human b?h?vi?r, from shopping t? m?rri?g?, t? the ?x?r???i?n ?f f??ling?; i? l??rn?d.In Canada, people t?nd to vi?w marriage as a choice b?tw??n tw? ????l?, based ?n mutual f??ling? ?f love.In some ?th?r nations and in ?th?r tim??, m?rri?g?? h?v? been arranged thr?ugh ?n intri??t? process of int?rvi?w? ?nd n?g?ti?ti?n? b?tw??n ?ntir? families, or in some ?????, through a dir??t ???t?m such ?? a “m?il ?rd?r bride.”To ??m??n? raised in Winnipeg for instance, th? marriage ?u?t?m? of a f?mil? fr?m Africa m?? seem strange, or ?v?n wr?ng.C?nv?r??l?, ??m??n? fr?m a traditional K?lk?t? f?mil? might b? perplexed with the id?? of r?m?nti? l?v? ?? th? foundation f?r the lif?l?ng ??mmitm?nt ?f m?rri?g?.In ?th?r words, th? way in whi?h people vi?w m?rri?g? d???nd? largely ?n wh?t they were t?ught. R?l?nd Barthes di?d?infull? r?f?rr?d to thi? ?? “th? h??t? ?t??king up” ?f a “m?r? mechanical ?iviliz?ti?n”.B?h?vi?r b???d on learned ?u?t?m? is n?t a bad thing. Being familiar with unwritt?n rul?? h?l?? people f??l ???ur? and “n?rm?l.”M??t ????l? w?nt t? liv? th?ir d?il? liv?? ??nfid?nt th?t th?ir behaviors will n?t b? ?h?ll?ng?d ?r disrupted. But ?v?n ?n ??ti?n ?? ???mingl? ?im?l? as commuting t? w?rk evidences a gr??t d??l of ?ultur?l diversities.Take the ???? ?f going t? w?rk on ?ubli? tr?n???rt?ti?n. Whether commuting in N?w York, Dublin, Cairo, Mumb?i, or V?n??uv?r, some behaviors will b? the ??m? in ?ll l???ti?n?, but ?ignifi??nt differences exists b?tw??n ?ultur??.T??i??ll?, a ?????ng?r in New York w?uld find a marked bu? stop ?r ?t?ti?n, wait f?r th? bu? or train, pay ?n ?g?nt b?f?r? ?r ?ft?r boarding, ?nd ?ui?tl? take a ???t if ?n? i? ?v?il?bl?.But wh?n b??rding a bus in Cairo, ?????ng?r? might h?v? to run, b???u?? bu??? th?r? often do not ??m ? t? a full ?t?? t? t?k? ?n patrons.Dublin bu? rid?r? would b? ?x???t?d t? ?xt?nd ?n ?rm to indicate th?t th?? w?nt the bu? to stop f?r th?m.And when b??rding a ??mmut?r tr?in in Mumb?i, ?????ng?r? must ??u??z? into ?v?r?tuff?d cars ?mid a l?t ?f pushing and shoving ?n the crowded platforms. Th?t kind ?f behavior would b? considered th? h?ight ?f rud?n??? in C?n?d? or th? U.S, but in Mumbai it r?fl??t? the daily ?h?ll?ng?? ?f g?tting around on a train ???t?m th?t i? grossly over utilized.In thi? example ?f ??mmuting, ?ultur? consists ?f th?ught? (?x???t?ti?n? ?b?ut ??r??n?l space, f?r example) ?nd t?ngibl? thing? (bus ?t???, tr?in?, ?nd ???ting ?????it?).M?t?ri?l ?ultur? r?f?r? to th? objects ?r belongings ?f a group of people. Metro passes ?nd bu? t?k?n? ?r? ??rt ?f m?t?ri?l culture, ?? ?r? automobiles, ?t?r??, ?nd th? ?h??i??l ?tru?tur?? where ????l? w?r?hi?.Nonmaterial culture, in contrast, ??n?i?t? ?f th? id???, ?ttitud??, ?nd b?li?f? of a ???i?t?. Material ?nd nonmaterial ????? t? of culture ?r? link?d, and ?h??i??l ?bj??t? often ??mb?liz? cultural ideas.A m?tr? ???? i? a m?t?ri?l ?bj??t, but it r??r???nt? a form ?f n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?, n?m?l?; ???it?li?m, ?nd th? acceptance of ???ing for transportation. Cl?thing, h?ir?t?l??, ?nd j?w?ll?r? ?r? part ?f m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? ???r??ri?t?n??? ?f wearing ??rt?in clothing f?r ????ifi? events reflects nonmaterial culture. A ??h??l building b?l?ng? to m?t?ri?l ?ultur?, but th? t???hing m?th?d? ?nd ?du??ti?n?l ?t?nd?rd? are ??rt ?f ?du??ti?n’? n?nm?t?ri?l ?ultur?.These m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? of ?ultur? ??n v?r? ?ubtl? from r?gi?n to r?gi?n.A? ????l? tr?v?l f?rth?r away from home, m?ving from diff?r?nt regions to ?ntir?l? diff?r?nt ??rt? of th? world, ??rt?in m?t?ri?l ?nd n?nm?t?ri?l ?????t? ?f culture become dr?m?ti??ll? unf?mili?r.Wh?t happens wh?n w? ?n??unt?r different ?ultur???A? w? int?r??t with ?ultur?? ?th?r than our ?wn, w? become more ?w?r? ?f th? differences and commonalities b?tw??n ?th?r w?rld? and our own.How d? we then judge these other diff?r?nt cultures? What becomes our justification for accepting theirs?MoralityM?r?lit? is th? ?u?lit? ?f b?ing in accord with standards of right ?r g??d ??ndu?t or a system ?f id??? th?t fall int? those ??m? categories. We often h??r w?rd? ?b?ut r?ligi?u? m?r?lit? ?r the ?hr??? Chri?ti?n m?r?lit? in ???i?t?. Items th?t f?ll int? th? m?r?ll? ??und ??t?g?r? are ?u?liti?? lik? g??d, g??dn???, rightn???, virtu?, ?nd right??u?n???.Wh?n talking about a m?r?l quality involving a course ?f ??ti?n, w? think ?f ?thi??. T? d?fin? m?r?lit?, a ??r??n will use th? rul?? or habits with r?g?rd to right ?nd wrong th?t he ?r she f?ll?w?.It is a ??m?l?x ???t?m ?f g?n?r?l ?rin?i?l?? and particular judgm?nt? b???d on ?ultur?l, r?ligi?u?, ?nd ?hil????hi??l ??n???t? and b?li?f?. Cultur?? and ?r groups r?gul?t? and g?n?r?liz? th??? ??n???t?, thus r?gul?ting behavior.Wh?n ??m??n? conforms t? th? codification, ??u ??n?id?r this ??r??n t? b? m?r?l.And yet , th? notion ?f h?w w? ?ught t? b?h?v? ?nd the r??lit? ?f h?w we d? b?h?v? ?r? varied ?nd r??l morality b?h?v?? in ????rd?n?? with ?n?? ??r???ti?n ?f m?r?lit?. Oft?n, d??trin?? ?r m?r?l duti?? th?t support the quality of an ??ti?n whi?h r?nd?r? it g??d, i? moral.And so a ???t?m ?f standards used t? ?r?du?? honest, d???nt, and ?thi??l r??ult? ?r? ??n?id?r?d m?r?l.Cultural ?b??luti?mMoral or cultural absolutism asserts th?t th?r? ?r? ??rt?in univ?r??l m?r?l principles by which ?ll ????l??’ actions m?? b? judg?d. It i? a form ?f deontology.The challenge with m?r?l absolutism, however, is th?t there will ?lw??? b? ?tr?ng di??gr??m?nt? ?b?ut whi?h moral ?rin?i?l?? are ??rr??t ?nd whi?h ?r? incorrect.F?r ?x?m?l?, m??t ????l? ?r?und the w?rld probably accept th? idea th?t w? ?h?uld tr??t ?th?r? ?? w? wi?h to b? treated ?ur??lv??. But b???nd th?t, ????l? fr?m diff?r?nt countries lik?l? h?ld varying vi?w? about ?v?r?thing fr?m th? m?r?lit? ?f ?b?rti?n ?nd capital ?uni?hm?nt t? n???ti?m ?nd brib?r?.M?r?l ?b??luti?m ??ntr??t? with m?r?l r?l?tivi?m, whi?h d?ni?? th?t th?r? ?r? ?b??lut? m?r?l v?lu??. It also diff?r? fr?m m?r?l pluralism, whi?h urg?? tolerance ?f ?th?r?’ m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? with?ut concluding th?t ?ll vi?w? are equally valid.S?, while m?r?l ?b??luti?m d??l?r?? a univ?r??l ??t ?f m?r?l v?lu??, in reality, m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? v?r? gr??tl? ?m?ng n?ti?n?, ?ultur??, and r?ligi?n?.CULTURAL RELATIVISM“If anyone, no matter wh?, w?r? giv?n the opportunity of ?h???ing from ?m?ng?t all the nations in th? world th? set ?f b?li?f? whi?h he th?ught b??t, h? w?uld in?vit?bl? ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n? ?f th?ir relative merits choose th?t of his ?wn ??untr?. Everyone without exception believes his ?wn native ?u?t?m?, ?nd the r?ligi?n h? w?? br?ught u? in, to be th? b??t”. Herodotus, The Hi?t?ri??W? h?v? almost extensively t?lk?d ?b?ut ?ultur? and h?w it v?ri?? ?v?r ?????.The m?r? farther w? tr?v?l fr?m wh?r? w? call h?m?, the m?r? th??? cultures becomes ?li?n? to us .S? philosophers’ ??k?d a ?u??ti?n:  If a ?ultur? fr?m far ?w?? ??ntr?di?t? ?ur?, d??? it make it wr?ng?Thi? ?u??ti?n g?v? birth t? cultural relativism.Cultur?l moral r?l?tivi?m i? th? th??r? th?t m?r?l judgm?nt? ?r truths ?r? r?l?tiv? to cultures, in ?th?r w?rd?, ?v?r? ?ultur? i? right.Consequently, wh?t is right in one society m?? b? wr?ng in ?n?th?r ?nd vi?? versa. You could think ?f culture as nation; ???i?t?; gr?u?, sub-culture, ?t?.This i? ?n?th?r th??r? with ancient r??t?. Herodotus, the f?th?r of hi?t?r?, d???rib?? th? Gr??k? ?n??unt?r with th? Callatians who ?t? their d??d r?l?tiv??.N?tur?ll?, th? Gr??k? found this ?r??ti?? r?v?lting. But th? Callatians w?r? ??u?ll? r???ll?d b? the Gr??k ?r??ti?? ?f ?r?m?ti?n ??u?ing Herodotus t? ??n?lud? th?t ethics i? culturally relative.Th? world lit?r?tur?: diff?r?nt ?ultur?? h?v? diff?r?nt m?r?l ??d??, ?n insight ??nfirm?d by th? ?vid?n?? of cultural diff?r?n???. Th? Incas practiced hum?n sacrifice, E?kim?? ?h?r?d th?ir wiv?? with st rangers ?nd killed newborns, Japanese samurai tri?d ?ut hi? n?w ?w?rd ?n an inn???nt ?????r-b?, Europeans ?n?l?v?d masses of Africans, and female ?ir?um?i?i?n i? ??rf?rm?d t?d?? in parts of North Afri??.D?riu?, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued b? the v?ri?t? ?f ?ultur?? h? met in hi? travels. H? h?d f?und, for ?x?m?l?, th?t th? C?ll?ti?n?, wh? lived in India, ate th? b?di?? ?f th?ir d??d f?th?r?. The Greeks, ?f ??ur??, did n?t do th?t th? Gr??k? ?r??ti??d cremation ?nd regarded th? funeral ??r? ?? the n?tur?l ?nd fitting w?? t? dispose ?f th? d??d. D?riu? thought th?t a sophisticated ?utl??k ?h?uld appreciate the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n cultures. On? d??, t? t???h thi? l????n, h? ?umm?n?d some Gr??k? wh? happened t? b? ?t hi? court and ??k?d wh?t it would t?k? f?r them to eat th? b?di?? ?f their d??d fathers. They w?r? ?h??k?d, ?? Darius knew they would b?, and replied that n? ?m?unt of money ??uld persuade th?m to d? such a thing. Then Darius ??ll?d in some C?ll?ti?n? and, whil ? the Gr??k? li?t?n?d, ??k?d them wh?t it w?uld t?k? f?r th?m t? burn th?ir d??d fathers’ b?di??. The C?ll?ti?n? w?r? h?rrifi?d and told D?riu? not t? ????k ?f such thing?T? a l?t of ????l?, th? idea “Different ?ultur?? h?v? different moral ??d??” w?uld b? the perfect w?? t? und?r?t?nd m?r?lit?. The idea is th?t th?r? ?r? no universal m?r?l truths; the ?u?t?m? ?f different societies are ?ll th?t exist.T? call a ?u?t?m “correct” ?r “in??rr??t” would imply th?t we can judg? th?t ?u?t?m by ??m? ind???nd?nt ?t?nd?rd ?f right ?nd wr?ng. But n? such ?t?nd?rd ?xi?t?; ?v?r? ?t?nd?rd is culture-bound. The ???i?l?gi?t Willi?m Gr?h?m Sumn?r ?ut it lik? thi?:Th? “right” w?? i? th? way whi?h th? ancestors u??d and whi?h h?? b??n h?nd?d down. Th? notion of right i? in th? folkways. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt origin, ?nd br?ught t? t??t th?m. In the f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r is, is right. This i? because they are tr?diti?n?l, ?nd th?r?f?r? ??nt?in in themselves th? auth ority ?f th? ?n???tr?l gh??t?. Wh?n w? come t? th? f?lkw??? we ?r? ?t th? ?nd ?f our ?n?l??i?.This lin? ?f th?ught, m?r? than ?n? other, has ??u??d people t? be ????ti??l ?b?ut ?thi??. Cultur?l Relativism says, in ?ff??t, that there i? n? such thing ?? univ?r??l truth?; th?r? ?r? ?nl? the various ?ultur?l ??d??, ?nd n?thing m?r?. Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m ?h?ll?ng?? ?ur belief in th? objectivity ?nd universality ?f moral truth.“The notion ?f right i? in th? f?lkw???. It is n?t ?ut?id? ?f th?m, ?f ind???nd?nt ?rigin, and br?ught t? t??t th?m. In th? f?lkw???, wh?t?v?r i?, is right”.   William GrahamTh? following claims have all been made by cultural r?l?tivi?t?:Diff?r?nt societies h?v? diff?r?nt moral ??d??.The moral ??d? ?f a ???i?t? determines wh?t i? right within th?t society; that i?, if the moral ??d? of a ???i?t? ???? that a ??rt?in action i? right, th?n that ??ti?n i? right, ?t least within th?t ???i?t?.Th?r? i? n? ?bj??tiv? ?t?nd?rd th?t can be used t? judg? ?n? ???i?t?’? ??d ? ?? b?tt?r than ?n?th?r’?. Th?r? are no moral truths that h?ld for ?ll people ?t all tim??.Th? m?r?l code of ?ur own society h?? no special ?t?tu?; it i? but ?n? among m?n?.It is arrogant f?r u? to judge ?th?r cultures. W? ?h?uld always b? tolerant ?f them.Th??? five ?r????iti?n? may seem t? g? together, but th?? ?r? ind???nd?nt ?f ?n? another, meaning th?t some ?f them m?? be tru? even while ?th?r? ?r? false. Indeed, tw? ?f th? ?r????iti?n? ?????r to b? inconsistent with ???h ?th?r.Th? ????nd ???? th?t right ?nd wr?ng ?r? d?t?rmin?d b? th? n?rm? of a society; th? fifth ???? that ?n? ?h?uld ?lw??? b? tolerant of ?th?r ?ultur??.But wh?t if the n?rm? ?f ?n?’? ???i?t? f?v?ur int?l?r?n???For ?x?m?l?, when th? Nazi ?rm? inv?d?d P?l?nd ?n S??t?mb?r 1, 1939, thus b?ginning World W?r II, thi? w?? an int?l?r?nt action of th? first order.But what if it ??nf?rm?d t? N?zi ideals? A ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, it ???m?, ??nn?t ?riti?iz? the Nazis f?r b?ing int?l?r?nt, if ?ll they’re doing i? fol lowing th?ir ?wn moral ??d?.Giv?n that cultural relativists take ?rid? in th?ir t?l?r?n??, it would b? ironic if th?ir theory ??tu?ll? ?u???rt?d th? int?l?r?n?? ?f w?rlik? ???i?ti??.H?w?v?r, their th??r? n??d n?t do th?t.Pr???rl? understood, Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m holds th?t the n?rm? ?f a ?ultur? r?ign ?u?r?m? within the b?und? of th? culture it??lf.Thu?, once th? German ??ldi?r? ?nt?r?d P?l?nd, th?? became b?und by th? n?rm? ?f Polish ???i?t? n?rm? th?t ?bvi?u?l? ?x?lud?d th? mass slaughter ?f inn???nt Poles. “When in R?m?,” the old ???ing g???, “d? ?? the R?m?n? do.” Cultur?l relativists agree.Cultur?l relativism i? b???d on tw? b??i? ideas or thesis:1.  Th? div?r?it? idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l beliefs, ?r??ti???, ?nd v?lu?? are diverse ?r v?r? fr?m one ?ultur? t? another; and2.  Th? dependency idea ?r th??i?: m?r?l ?blig?ti?n? d???nd? u??n ?ultur??, since th?? ?r? th? fin?l judg?? ?f m?r?l truth. In short, cultural relativism im?li?? th?t n? cultural v?lu?? h?v? ?n? ?bj??tiv?, univ?r??l v?lidit?, ?nd it would b? ?rr?g?nt f?r one ?ultur? t? m?k? moral judgm?nt? ?b?ut ?th?r ?ultur??.Th??? th??i? ?f div?r?it? is descriptiveThese th??i? of div?r?it? are d???ri?tiv? in that they describe th? w??? thing? ?r?. M?r?l b?li?f?, rules ?nd ?r??ti??? in actual fact, d???nd upon facades of ?ultur? lik? ???i?l, ??liti??l, religious, ?nd economic institutions.B? contrast the th??i? ?f d???nd?n?? i? prescriptive; it describes how things ?ught to b?.M?r?lit? ?h?uld d???nd on ?ultur? b???u?? th?r? i? n?thing else u??n which it i? based.N?w we might argue for cultural r?l?tivi?m ?? f?ll?w?:Argument 1 â€" (fr?m th? div?r?it? th??i?)Different cultures h?v? diff?r?nt moral codes;Thu?, th?r? is n? morality ind???nd?nt of ?ultur?.The weakness ?f thi? argument i? th?t th? ??n?lu?i?n d???n’t f?ll?w fr?m th? premise. Th? f??t th?t cultures di??gr?? ?b?ut m?r?lit? doesn’t ?h?w th?t morality is r?l?tiv?.Aft?r ?ll, ?ultur?? disagree ?b?ut whether ?b?rti?n i? moral ?r imm?r?l, but t h?ir disagreement d???n’t m??n th?r? i? no truth ?b?ut th? m?tt?r. It might be that one culture i? ju?t mi?t?k?n.C?n?id?r h?w ?ultur?? might di??gr?? ?? t? wh?th?r th? earth ?r ?un i? at th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Th?ir di??gr??m?nt doesn’t m??n there is no truth ?b?ut th? matter.Th?r? i? a ?r?v?n fact b??k?d by science th?t ?h?w? the ?un is th? ??nt?r ?f ?ur ??l?r system. Thi? ?im?l? m??n? whether you b?li?v? it or not, it remains a f??t.Simil?rl?, ???i?ti?? might di??gr?? ?b?ut wh?th?r they ?h?uld put their ??ung t? d??th, but th?t di??gr??m?nt ?r?v?? n?thing, ?x???t th?t “???i?ti?? di??gr??”. So cultural disagreements ?r? n?t ?n?ugh t? ?r?v? ?ultur?l relativism. C?n?id?r another ?rgum?nt:Argum?nt 2 â€" (fr?m th? d???nd?n?? th??i?)Wh?t i? often regarded as th? m?r?l truths depends on ?ultur?l b?li?f?;Thu?, th?r? i? no m?r?l truth independent of culture.The ?rgum?nt ??mmit? the f?ll??? that l?gi?i?n? ??ll “b?gging the ?u??ti?n.”This ???ur? wh?n you assume th? truth of wh?t ??u ?r? tr?ing t? prove. (For ?x?m?l?, if you ??k m? wh? I think abortion i? wrong ?nd I say, b???u?? it’? bad, I’v? b?gg?d the question.)In argument 2, one i? trying to ?h?w th?t right and wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur?. It b?g? th? ?u??ti?n t? ??? th?t right ?nd wr?ng d???nd ?n ?ultur? b???u?? th?? d???nd on ?ultur?.We might w? m?k? a ?tr?ng?r case f?r th? r?l?tivi?t if we ?ut th? two th???? t?g?th?r?Premise 1 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng v?r? b?tw??n ?ultur?? (div?r?it?).Pr?mi?? 2 â€" Right ?nd wr?ng depend u??n a ?ultur?l ??nt?xt (d???nd?n??).C?n?lu?i?n â€" Thu?, right ?nd wr?ng ?r? relative t? ?ultur?.Critique of Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 1Let’s ??n?id?r th? first premise (div?r?it?). Nothing ???m? m?r? ?bvi?u? th?n the f??t ?f cultural diff?r?n???. E?kim?? b?li?v?d in inf?nti?id?; m??t Am?ri??n? d? n?t. Most Am?ri??n? b?li?v? ?x??uting ?rimin?l? i? m?r?ll? justifiable; most Fr?n?h find th? ?r??ti?? b?rb?ri?. Clearly, th?r? are diff?r?nt ?ultur?l m?r??. But m??b? the diff?r?n??? b?tw??n ?ultur?l v?lu?? ?r? not ?? great as they ???m.C?n?id?r th?t Eskimos liv? in harsh climates wh?r? f??d is in ?h?rt ?u??l? ?nd m?th?r? nur?? th?ir b?bi?? for ???r?. There ?im?l? i?n’t ?n?ugh f??d f?r ?ll their ?hildr?n, nor enough b??k? upon which nomadic people can ??rr? th?ir children. S? Eskimos w?nt their ?hildr?n t? liv? ju?t lik? we d?, ?nd it i? th? h?r?h and unusual condition th?t f?r?? th?m t? m?k? diffi?ult ?h?i???.S?m?tim?? th?? kill a weaker child so th?t both th? ?tr?ng?r ?nd weaker children won’t di?. W? m?? di??gr?? with th? ?r??ti??, but w? can im?gin? d?ing th? ??m? in similar circumstances. Thu?, th? underlying principle life i? v?lu?bl? h?? b??n ???li?d differently in diff?r?nt contexts. M??b? ?ultur?? ?r?n’t so diff?r?nt ?ft?r ?ll.C?n?id?r that there i? m?r? ?rim? in America th?n in France. Most Am?ri??n? seem t? b?li?v? that criminals deserve to b? ?uni?h?d for th?ir ?rim??, th?t ??v?r? ?uni?hm?nt brings ????? t? th? vi?tim’? f?mil?, that ???it?l punishment i? a d?t?rr?nt to crime, ?t?. Th? French ?r? m?r? lik?l? to renounce r?tributi?n ?r doubt that ???it?l ?uni?hm?nt bring? vi?tim’? f?mili?? ????? ?r d?t?r? crime.But notice ?g?in. B?th ?ultur?? ?r? steered b? a ?rin?i?l? ??t ju?tl? ?v?n th?ugh th?? ???l? the ?rin?i?l? diff?r?ntl?. So u??n closer in????ti?n, th?r? d???n’t ???m to b? as much di??gr??m?nt as it fir?t ?????r?d. So th? diff?r?n??? in ?ultur?l values might be more ????r?nt th?n real.N?w ?u????? w? ??uld ?h?w th?t there ?r? m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? that ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?? Wouldn’t that ?h?w that morality w?? not r?l?tiv? t? ?ultur?? Many ??i?nti?t? ?l?im th?t there are moral ?rin?i?l?? common t? ?ll ?ultur??.For in?t?n??, ?ll ?ultur?? ?h?r?: r?gul?ti?n? ?n sexual b?h?vi?r; ?r?hibiti?n? ?g?in?t unju?t killing; r??uir?m?nt? ?f familial obligations and ?hild care; emphasis ?n truth-telling; and r?w?rd f?r reciprocity and ?????r?ti?n.If w? take th??? two id??? t?g?th?r ?ultur?l moral diff?r?n??? arenâ €™t as great ?? they appear, ?nd all ?ultur?? ?h?r? ??m? moral v?lu?? th?n th? diversity thesis is f?l??. And if th? fir?t ?r?mi?? i? f?l??, th?n th? ??n?lu?i?n ?f the cultural relativist’s argument d???n’t follow.However n?ti?? th?t even if th? first ?r?mi?? is f?l??, that d???n’t ?r?v? that m?r?l objectivism i? tru?. Cultur?? th?t ?h?r? the same m?r?l v?lu?? ??uld ?ll be wr?ng! So the ?m?iri??l evidence concerning ?imil?riti?? and diff?r?n??? b?tw??n moral codes i?n’t r?l?v?nt t? the ?u??ti?n ?f whether m?r?lit? is absolute ?r r?l?tiv?.And that m??n? that whil? w? h?v?n’t ?r?v?n th? truth of ?ultur?l absolutism, w? have und?rmin?d th? cultural r?l?tivi?t.F?r the ?vid?n?? ?b?ut diversity of ?ultur? is irr?l?v?nt, then w? h?v? undermined th? r?l?tivi?t’? fir?t ?r?mi??, and with it the conclusion ?f hi?/h?r ?rgum?nt.Criti?u? ?f Cultur?l M?r?l R?l?tivi?m â€" Pr?mi?? 2Whil? undermining the fir?t premise ?uffi?i?ntl? und?rmin?? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, l?t’? turn to th? secon d ?r?mi?? (dependency) t? ??? if it f?r?? ?n? b?tt?r. N?w it d??? ?????r tru? th?t ??m? moral “truths” d???nd ?n ?ultur? f?r ?x?m?l?, regulations on sexual behaviors or fun?r?l practices.But it i? not ??lf-?vid?nt that ?ll m?r?l truth depends ?n ?ultur?. Moral truth may b? ind???nd?nt ?f ?ultur? in th? same way th?t ?th?r truth? ?r? independent of ?ultur?. Ethi?? m?? b? ?bj??tiv?l? gr?und?d in r????n, th? god’s ??mm?nd?, th? m??t happiness f?r th? m??t people, human nature, ?r something else.But r?th?r th?n tr?ing t? contradict ?ll the r?l?tivi?t’? ?rgum?nt? for the ????nd ?r?mi??, consider th? im?li??ti?n? ?f taking ?ultur?l relativism ??ri?u?l?. If ?ultur?l relativism is true th?n ?ll ?f the following (??unt?r-intuitiv?) ?r? true.W? ??nn?t m?k? cross-cultural judgm?nt?. W? ??uld n?t consistently criticize a ?ultur? for killing all those over f?rt?, ?xt?rmin?ting ethnic groups, ?r banishing ?hildr?n t? th? Antarctic.We ??nn?t m?k? intr?-?ultur?l judgm?nt?. W? cannot ???, e ven within ?ur ?ultur?, whether w? ?h?uld send ?hildr?n t? their d??th ?r to ??h??l, wh?th?r w? should t?rtur? ?ur ?rimin?l? ?r reward th?m.The id?? ?f m?r?l progress is in??h?r?nt. All you ??n say is th?t cultures ?h?ng?, n?t that one i? b?tt?r than another. The old ?ultur? ?r??ti??d ?l?v?r?; w? do n?t, ?nd th?t’? th? end of it. Th? appearance ?f moral ?r?gr??? i? illu??r?. (M?r? ?n th?t shortly)But ?ll of thi? is counter-intuitive. W? might think th?t cultures ??n d? what th?? w?nt r?g?rding fun?r?l ?r??ti???, but wh?t ?b?ut hum?n ???rifi??? Aren’t th?r? some thing? th?t ?r? just ?l?in wrong, in both ?th?r ?ultur?? ?nd ?ur ?wn? D?n’t ??u b?li?v? that ???i?t? i? better n?w b???u?? it has ?utl?w?d ?l?v?r?? Cultur?l relativism answers no t? b?th ?u??ti?n?. But ??n ?u?h a strongly counterintuitive th??r? be ??rr??t?“But to ?x?li?itl? ?dv???t? cultural r?l?tivi?m on the gr?und? th?t it promotes t?l?r?n?? i? t? im?li?itl? assume th?t t?l?r?n?? i? ?n absolute v?lu?…..”.   S?h i?k ?nd V?ughn, 2010WHY CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG“Show m? a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t ?t 30,000 feet and Ill ?h?w ??u a hypocrite ” Ri?h?rd D?wkin?, Riv?r Out ?f Ed?n: A D?rwini?n Vi?w ?f Lif?1. Univ?r??l M?r?l RulesIn the ethics lit?r?tur?, both cultural r?l?tivi?t? ?nd ?b??luti?t? ?gr?? th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? incompatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f univ?r??l moral rules. In ?rd?r t? defend moral r?l?tivi?m, f?r example, Harman ?l?im? that it i? unlik?l? that univ?r??ll? ?????t?d m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?xi?t:It is unlikely th?t ?n? nontrivial m?r?l ?rin?i?l?? ?r? universally ?????t?d in all ???i?ti??. (H?rm?n, 1996)With th? vi?w t? r?futing ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Th?m??n in 1990, and S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn in their 2010 work argue th?t there ?r? universal moral rules. Th?ir ?x?m?l?? ?r? ?? f?ll?w?:“On? ?ught n?t t? t?rtur? b?bi?? to d??th f?r fun” Th?m??n  â€œEquals ?h?uld b? tr??t?d ??u?ll? is n?t th? ?nl? ??lf-?vid?nt m?r?l truth. An?th?r i?: Unn??????r? suffering i? wr?ng” S?hi?k an d VaughnThese moral rules are ?? intuitiv?l? appealing th?t violating th?m ???m? t? r??ult in ?n imm?r?l ??t whichever culture you may liv? in. C?n???u?ntl?, th?? are univ?r??l, and h?n?? th?? ?r? counterexamples and r?fut? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m.C?ntr?di?t the m?r?l? ?b?v? as b?ing r?l?tivi?t?, I’ll wait!Some ??i?nti?t believe that the ?xi?t?n?? of univ?r??l moral rul?? i? not ?ntir?l? a ?trik? ?g?in?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. Recall th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?l?im? th?t ?n ??t is right or wr?ng with respect to a ?ultur?, and th?t n? ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n another.N?n? of these claims ?r? undercut b? th? existence of th? ?? ??ll?d universal m?r?l rul??.F?r th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, a m?r?l rul? is universal n?t b???u?? it i? in line with th? absolutely right ?t?nd?rd th?t transcends ?ll cultures but because it i? in lin? with all the ?ultur?? in th? w?rld. Cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have t? ?r??lud? th? ????ibilit? th?t all the cultures in the world jointly ?nd?r?? some moral rul??.To p ut differently, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is compatible with th? ?xi?t?n?? ?f ?n int?r???ti?n ?m?ng diff?r?nt ?ultur??. Su????? that the intersection in?lud?? the m?r?l rule that one ought not t? t?rtur? babies t? d??th for fun.Th?n, if a K?r??n ?r ?n Am?ri??n t?rtur?? a b?b? to d??th, it would b? immoral b???u?? it i? prohibited b? th?ir r?????tiv? ?ultur??, n?t because it d??? not m?t?h u? with th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd.It follows that cultural r?l?tivi?m does not have to require th?t n? moral ?rin?i?l? be univ?r??l.“Historicism and cultural r?l?tivi?m actually are a m??n? t? ?v?id t??ting our ?wn ?r?judi??? ?nd ??king, for ?x?m?l?, wh?th?r men ?r? r??ll? equal ?r wh?th?r th?t ??ini?n i? m?r?l? a d?m??r?ti? ?r?judi??” Allan Bloom2. Hitler Was RightAccording t? th? th??r? ?f ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m, Hitl?r’? g?n??id?l ??ti?n i? ju?t as m?r?ll? praiseworthy ?? M?th?r T?r???’? ???rifi?i?l action:“Ad?lf Hitl?r’? genocidal ??ti?n?, ?? long as they are ?ultur?ll? ?????t?d, ?r? ?? morally l?gitim?t? ?? M?th?r T?r???’? works ?f mercy” P?jm?n, 2007Hitl?r’? heinous acts w?r? accepted b? the N?zi culture, so ?ultur?l relativism ?nt?il? that th?? w?r? m?r?l. Our intuition, h?w?v?r, tells u? that it w?? imm?r?l. Th?r?f?r?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is f?l?? ?nd ultim?t?l? wr?ng.D???it? Pojman’s foregoing ?bj??ti?n, a cultural r?l?tivi?t would ?t?nd hi? gr?und, saying th?t Hitler’s ??t? were m?r?l with r?????t t? the Nazi ?ultur?, and M?th?r T?r???’? acts w?r? m?r?l with respect to n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Hitler’s acts ??und imm?r?l t? u? b???u?? ?ur intuiti?n i? influ?n??d b? non-Nazi ?ultur? which we ?r? implicitly u?ing ?? the m?r?l fr?m?w?rk t? ?v?lu?t? hi? ??t?.We ?l?? m?k? a ???nt?n??u? judgm?nt that n?n-N?zi ?ultur? i? b?tt?r th?n th? N?zi culture because ?ur intuiti?n i? l?d?n with non-Nazi ?ultur?, ?nd w? ?r? t??itl? employing it ?? the ?t?nd?rd to ?????? the Nazi ?ultur?.M?mb?r? of th? N?zi ?ultur? would r?j??t ?ur judgm?nt because th?ir intuition i? ?r?d i?????d to f?v?r th?ir own culture, ?nd th?? are unconsciously u?ing it in ???r?i?ing n?n-N?zi ?ultur?.Furth?rm?r?, if Hitler h?d been a ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t, h? would n?t h?v? ?tt??k?d J?w? in th? fir?t ?l??? b???u?? h? would h?v? believed th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? n? m?r? ??rr??t than th? Jewish ?ultur?.M?r??v?r, hi? ?tr??i?u? ??ti?n? conform w?ll t? a cultural absolutist’s possible b?li?f th?t th? G?rm?n ?ultur? w?? ?u??ri?r t? th? Jewish ?ultur?.D???it? th? ju?tifi??ti?n?, w? ?till d? know th?t Hitl?r was wr?ng.So if ??u f??l Hitl?r w?? right, then cultural relativism i? right, but if ?n the other hand, you f??l Hitl?r was wr?ng, th?n it proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? wrong.Personally, I think Hitler was wrong.“I know ?f no civilization th?t tolerates or justifies vi?l?n??, t?rr?ri?m, or inju?ti??. Th?r? i? n? ?iviliz?ti?n th?t ju?tifi?? the killing ?f inn???nt people. Th??? wh? ?r? invoking ?ultur?l relativism ?r? r??ll? using that ?? an excuse for vi?l?ting hum?n righ t? ?nd to ?ut a ?ultur?l m??k ?n th? f??? ?f what th??r? doing”  â€"  Shirin Eb?di3. S??i?l R?f?rm?r? Ar? WrongS?m? ?hil????h?r? ?l?im th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m l??d? t? an unsavory ??n???u?n?? that ???i?l r?f?rm?r? ?r? ?lw??? wr?ng t? ?????? a ???i?ll? ?????t?d practice:“S??i?l r?f?rm?r? ??uldn’t ?l?im th?t a ???i?ll? approved ?r??ti?? is wr?ng because if ???i?t? ???r?v?? of it, it mu?t be right”. S?hi?k ?nd Vaughn, 2010“..reformers are ?lw??? (morally) wr?ng since th?? g? against the tid? of ?ultur?l ?t?nd?rd?. F?r ?x?m?l?, William Wilb?rf?r?? w?? wr?ng in th? ?ight??nth ??ntur? t? oppose ?l?v?r?”. (P?jm?n, 2007It ??und? convincing t? u?, h?w?v?r, that ?l?v?r? w?? a d??l?r?bl? practice, ?nd th?t th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right t? challenge it. But cultural relativism ???? ?th?rwi??.A cultural relativist w?uld r??l? th?t th? ???i?l reformers w?r? ind??d wr?ng t? oppose ?l?v?r?, but he would add that th?? were wr?ng with r?????t to the past ?ultur?, ?nd they were right wi th respect t? ??m? ?r???nt ?ultur?.W? instantaneously assent to th? vi?w that th? r?f?rm?r? w?r? right b???u?? ?ur intuition i? influ?n??d b? th? present ?ultur?, and w? employ it to d?t?rmin? whether th? social r?f?rm?r? w?r? right or wr?ng.We w?uld h?v? h?d th? ?????it? intuiti?n that the ???i?l reformers w?r? wrong, if w? had liv?d in th? past ?ultur? wh?r? ?l?v?r? was t?k?n for gr?nt?d, ?nd if we h?d u??d th? ???t ?ultur? as a framework for our m?r?l judgm?nt.L?t me add th?t if th? m??t?r? had b??n ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t?, th?? would not h?v? ?n?l?v?d th? bl??k? in th? first ?l??? because th?? w?uld h?v? b?li?v?d th?t their ?ultur? w?? n? b?tt?r than th? black ?ultur?.Th? whit??’ ??t of ?n?l?ving the bl??k? m??h?? w?ll with a ?ultur?l ?b??luti?t’? ????ibl? b?li?f th?t th? white culture i? superior t? th? bl??k culture.Ag?in, it i? not ?l??r wh?th?r it is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m ?r ?b??luti?m th?t h?? a m?r? hazardous im???t on our d?il? liv??4. N? M?r?l Pr?gr???Let u? ??m??r? the ? ??t ?ultur? where th?r? were slaves with the ?r???nt ?ultur? wh?r? th?r? ?r? n? ?l?v??.A???rding t? cultural r?l?tivi?m, there i? n? ?u?h thing ?? ?n ?b??lut?l? right standard, ?? th? ?r???nt ?ultur? i? n?ith?r better n?r worse than th? past ?ultur?. If th?t i? tru?, however, th?r? w?uld b? n? ?u?h thing ?? m?r?l ?r?gr???:“T? say th?t w? h?v? m?d? progress im?li?? that ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is b?tt?r â€" just th? ??rt ?f transcultural judgment that Cultur?l Relativism forbids”. Rachels ?nd R??h?l?, 2010W? strongly b?li?v?, however, th?t ?ultur? and m?r?lit? h?v? ?r?gr????d, i.?., th? ?r???nt culture is more ??rr??t than the past ?ultur?.Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m is wrong.The id?? of m?r?l progress i? called int? d?ubt. Usually, we think th?t ?t least ??m? ???i?l ?h?ng?? ?r? f?r the b?tt?r. (Although, ?f course, ?th?r changes may be f?r th? w?r??.) Thr?ugh?ut most ?f Western history th? place ?f w?m?n in ???i?t? was narrowly circumscribed. Th?? ??uld n?t ?wn ?r???rt?; th?? cou ld not v?t? or h?ld political ?ffi??; ?nd g?n?r?ll? th?? w?r? und?r th? almost ?b??lut? control of their husbands. R???ntl? mu?h ?f thi? h?? ?h?ng?d, ?nd m??t people think ?f it ?? progress.If Cultural Relativism i? ??rr??t, can we l?gitim?t?l? think ?f this as ?r?gr???? Progress m??n? r??l??ing a way ?f d?ing things with a b?tt?r way. But b? what ?t?nd?rd d? we judge th? new ways ?? better? If th? old w??? w?r? in ????rd?n?? with th? social ?t?nd?rd? ?f th?ir tim?, then Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m w?uld ??? it is a mistake t? judg? th?m b? th? ?t?nd?rd? ?f a different time. Eight??nth-??ntur? ???i?t? w??, in effect, a different ???i?t? fr?m th? ?n? w? h?v? n?w. T? ??? th?t w? h?v? m?d? ?r?gr??? im?li?? a judgm?nt th?t ?r???nt-d?? ???i?t? is better, ?nd th?t is just th? sort ?f tr?n??ultur?l judgment th?t, according to Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, i? im??rmi??ibl?.Our idea ?f social reform will ?l?? h?v? to be r???n?id?r?d. R?f?rm?r? such ?? M?rtin Luth?r King, Jr., h?v? sought t? ?h?ng? their soci eties for th? b?tt?r. Within th? constraints im????d b? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, there i? ?n? w?? this might b? done. If a ???i?t? i? n?t living u? t? it? own id??l?, th? r?f?rm?r m?? be regarded ?? ??ting f?r the b??t: Th? id??l? of th? ???i?t? ?r? th? standard by whi?h w? judge his ?r her ?r?????l? ?? worthwhile. But th? r?f?rm?r m?? n?t ?h?ll?ng? th? id??l? th?m??lv??, f?r those id??l? ?r? b? d?finiti?n ??rr??t. A???rding t? Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, th?n, th? id?? ?f ???i?l reform m?k?? ??n?? only in thi? limit?d way.These thr?? consequences of Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m have l?d many think?r? t? reject it ?? implausible ?n it? f???. It d??? m?k? ??n??, th?? ???, to ??nd?mn ??m? practices, such as slavery and ?nti-S?miti?m, wherever th?? occur. It m?k?? ??n?? t? think th?t ?ur own ???i?t? has m?d? ??m? m?r?l progress, whil? admitting th?t it is still im??rf??t and in need ?f r?f?rm. Because Cultur?l Relativism ???? that th??? judgments m?k? n? ??n??, th? argument g???, it cannot b? right.A ?ult ur?l r?l?tivi?t w?uld ?dmit th?t w? m?v?d t?w?rd equality ?? a r??ult ?f th? ?b?liti?n ?f slavery, but he would deny th?t w? moved t?w?rd the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd.W? m?? think th?t w? ?r? n?w ?l???r to th? ?b??lut?l? right ?t?nd?rd b???u?? ??u?lit? is ?f ?b??lut? v?lu?.When we think ??, h?w?v?r, w? ?r? u?ing th? ?r???nt ?ultur? ?? ?ur moral fr?m? of r?f?r?n?? which approves of equality.If we use th? ???t culture ?? ?ur m?r?l frame of reference whi?h di????r?v?d of ??u?lit?, we would h?v? ?n ?????it? intuition that we ?r? n?w farther fr?m the absolutely right ?t?nd?rd, and h?n?? w? m?d? m?r?l r?gr??? r?th?r th?n ?r?gr???.5. Any Act ??n b? Made M?r?lPojman argues that ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m has th? di?turbing ??n???u?n?? that ?v?n a fl?gr?nt ?rim? ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? conjuring u? a culture whi?h accepts it:“Bundy would b? morally ?ur? in r??ing ?nd killing inn???nt? ?im?l? b? virtu? ?f forming a little coterie”. P?jm?n, 2007Forming such a ?ultur?, h?w?v?r, does n?t make r??ing and killing inn???nt? m?r?l. But ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m di??gr???.A cultural r?l?tivi?t would cheerfully gr?nt that ?n? act ??n b? m?d? m?r?l b? forming a ?ultur? that ???r?v?? of it. His ???iti?n i? ?r????t?r?u?. Let u? g? to th? r?l?tivit? ?f m?ti?n.A ??r i? tr?v?lling ?t 50km/h with r?????t to the gr?und ?? a ?t?nd?rd. But ?? l?ng as you inv?k? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??, th? ??r can be said t? b? tr?v?lling ?t any ????d ??u like. F?r ?x?m?l?, it can b? said t? be moving ?t 30km/h, if ??u ?i?k ?? a fr?m? ?f reference a bicycle tr?v?lling at 20km/h with r?????t to the ground in the ??m? dir??ti?n.Regarding the ??m? ??r, ??u can say th?t it i? m?ving ?t 50km/h, 30km/h, ?t?. You ??n ?h???? wh?t?v?r v?l??it? ??u lik?. Y?u ?r? right about th? velocity of the ??r, insofar ?? ??u appeal t? a right frame ?f r?f?r?n??.The ??m? is true of m?r?lit?.You are right about th? morality ?f a ??rt?in ??ti?n in??mu?h ?? ??u invoke a ?ultur? whi?h ??mm?nd? it.F?r ?x?m?l?, you ??n ??? that murd?r i? rig ht, but ?dd th?t th? action is ???????d und?r th? ?rimin?l culture whi?h ?r?i??? murd?r.And tru?t m?, th?t’? just BS. Murd?r is wr?ng.“Wh?n?v?r w?m?n ?r?t??t and ask for th?ir rights, th?? ?r? silenced with th? ?rgum?nt th?t th? l?w? ?r? ju?tifi?d und?r I?l?m. It i? an unf?und?d argument. It is not Islam ?t f?ult, but r?th?r th? ??tri?r?h?l ?ultur? th?t uses it? ?wn int?r?r?t?ti?n? t? ju?tif? wh?t?v?r it w?nt?”  â€"  Shirin Eb?diWe could d??id? wh?th?r ??ti?n? are right or wr?ng just b? consulting th? standards of our ???i?t?. Cultur?l Relativism ?ugg??t? a ?im?l? t??t f?r d?t?rmining wh?t i? right and wh?t i? wr?ng: All ?n? need d? is ask wh?th?r th? action is in accordance with th? code ?f ?n?? ???i?t?. Suppose in 1975, a r??id?nt of South Afri?? was w?nd?ring wh?th?r hi? ??untr?? ??li?? of ???rth?id, a rigidl? racist ???t?m w?? m?r?ll? ??rr??t. All h? h?? t? d? i? ask wh?th?r thi? policy ??nf?rm?d t? hi? ???i?t?? m?r?l code. If it did, th?r? w?uld h?v? b??n n?thing to worry about, at l???t fr?m a moral point of vi?w.Thi? im?li??ti?n ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m is disturbing b???u?? f?w ?f us think that our ???i?t?? ??d? i? perfect; w? ??n think ?f w??? it might b? im?r?v?d. Yet Cultur?l Relativism would n?t ?nl? f?rbid us fr?m ?riti?izing th? ??d?? ?f ?th?r ???i?ti??; it would ?t?? u? fr?m ?riti?izing ?ur ?wn. Aft?r ?ll, if right and wr?ng are r?l?tiv? to ?ultur?, thi? must be tru? for ?ur own ?ultur? ju?t ?? mu?h ?? f?r ?th?r cultures.6. Vague C?n???tR???ll th?t cultural r?l?tivi?m holds th?t m?r?lit? i? r?l?tiv? t? a ?ultur?. Th?r? i? ?n objection th?t w? cannot ?r??i??l? d?fin? th? ??n???t of ?ultur? that figur?? in th? formulation of cultural r?l?tivi?m:“How l?rg? mu?t th? group b? in order t? b? a legitimate ?ub?ultur? or society?”…P?jm?nSince it is n?t ?l??r h?w m?n? m?mb?r? are r??uir?d for a culture ?r a ???i?t? to serve as a m?r?l fr?m?w?rk, cultural r?l?tivi?m is ??n???tu?ll? fl?w?d.In ?rd?r t? ??nfr?nt P?jm?n’? criticism ?b?v?, a cultura l relativist ??uld ??njur? u? again the relativity of m?ti?n. W? ??n gr?u? a tree, a road ?ign, and a r??k t?g?th?r, and say that a ??r is travelling ?t 50km/h in r?l?ti?n to th?t gr?u? of the ?bj??t?. H?w many objects are r??uir?d in ?rd?r for th? gr?u? t? ??rv? as a fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n???The answer is ?bvi?u?. An? numb?r of ?bj??t? can d?. Ev?n milli?n ?bj??t? can ??n?titut? a ?ingl? frame ?f r?f?r?n??. The ??m? is true ?f m?r?lit? f?r a cultural relativist. An? number of ????l? can constitute a ?ultur?.In ??n?lu?i?n, I ??n create m? ?wn ?ultur? alone ?nd d??id? th?t I accept killing people f?r th? fun of it.Recall th?t cultural ?b??luti?m ???? th?t there i? th? ?b??lut?l? right standard transcending all “cultures.” N?t? th?t th? ??n???t ?f culture ?l?? figur?? in the f?rmul?ti?n of ?ultur?l ?b??luti?m.A ?ultur?l absolutist i? faced with a ?imil?r challenge: H?w large must a gr?u? be in ?rd?r t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t i? transcended b? th? ?b??lut?l? right culture tr?n???nd??A lso, as di??u???d in a f?r?g?ing section, P?jm?n ?bj??t? th?t social r?f?rm?r? are ?lw??? wr?ng t? g? ?g?in?t their ?wn ?ultur? if ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m were true.How l?rg? must a group b? in order t? ??n?titut? a ?ultur? th?t th? reformers ??????? Thu?, P?jm?n’? ?riti?i?m ?g?in?t cultural relativism f?r?? n? b?tt?r th?n cultural r?l?tivi?m vi?-à-vi? th? problem h? r?i??? against it.7. Belonging t? Two Cultur??A ??r??n m?? belong t? diff?r?nt ?ultur?? at th? ??m? time, and they may h?v? conflicting m?r?l ??d??. In ?u?h a ?itu?ti?n, hi? ?r h?r ??t can be b?th right ?nd wr?ng:Relativism would seem to t?ll us th?t wh?r? h? is a m?mb?r of ???i?ti?? with conflicting m?r?liti?? he mu?t b? judged b?th wr?ng ?nd not-wrong wh?t?v?r h? d???. P?jm?n, 2007Suppose, f?r ?x?m?l?, th?t M?r? is an American citizen and Chri?ti?n, ?nd th?t ?h? h?d ?n abortion. The Am?ri??n law ??nd?n?? it, but Chri?ti?nit? ?r?hibit? it. A???rding t? ?ultur?l relativism, M?r?’? abortion i? b?th right ?nd wr?ng, but it i? impossible f?r an act t? b? b?th right and wr?ng.A cultural relativist w?uld ?g?in ??k u? t? r?fl??t u??n the r?l?tivit? of m?ti?n. Su????? th?t a ??r is in m?ti?n with r?????t to the ground. In ?u?h a situation, th? driver is b?th in m?ti?n ?nd ?t r??t.At first glance, a ??ntr?di?ti?n is ??mmitt?d, but th? ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? once we m?k? th? fr?m?? ?f r?f?r?n?? explicit. Th? driv?r is in motion with respect to th? gr?und but is ?t r??t with r?????t to th? ?????ng?r.The same i? tru? ?f m?r?lit? for th? ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?t.At fir?t ?ight, it is a contradiction that Mary’s ?b?rti?n i? both m?r?l ?nd immoral, but this ???ming ??ntr?di?ti?n di???lv?? ?n?? we ?xhibit the ?ultur?? by whi?h M?r?’? abortion is judg?d. M?r?’? abortion i? m?r?l in relation t? th? Am?ri??n culture but is immoral in relation to th? Chri?ti?n culture.Thu?, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? und?rmin?d because ?n? b?l?ng? t? different cultures with contradictory m?r?l ??d??.Whi?h ?ultur? should Mary ?h???? w hen ?h? ??nt?m?l?t?? wh?th?r t? h?v? ?n abortion ?r not? Critics argue th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?il?nt on this issue:“Relativism ???m? to ?r?vid? n? way t? g?t a handle on th? kind ?f uncertainty that a ??r??n may h?v? in ?h???ing between the ways ?f his ?hur?h, hi? f?mil?, hi? fri?nd?, his ??untri??, ?t?”. S?tri?, 2008“Each ?f us i? a m?mb?r ?f m?n? different cultures, ?nd there is no w?? t? d?t?rmin? whi?h one is ?ur tru? ?ultur?”. Schick and V?ughn: 2010It i? n?t ?l??r whi?h ?ultur? we ?h?uld ?h????, ?nd wh?t would be the grounds f?r ?ur ?h?i??. Therefore, ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m i? ?n incomplete theory ?f m?r?lit?.In r????n??, a cultural relativist would ?g?in ??k u? to imagine th?t a car is tr?v?lling at 50km/h with respect t? th? ground but is at r??t with r?????t to th? passenger.Of the ground ?nd th? passenger, which ?bj??t ?h?uld w? ?h???? ?? a fr?m? of reference? Th? answer i? ?bvi?u?. W? can choose wh?t?v?r ?bj??t we lik? ?? l?ng as it ?uit? ?ur need whi?h i? ??m? w?rth wrong i? ??u ??k m?. Chosing th?t a behavior is right or wrong ?nl? when it suits ??u.If w? ?r? interested in how long it will t?k? for the driv?r to reach hi? d??tin?ti?n, it i? appropriate t? ?h???? th? gr?und ?? th? fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In other ?itu?ti?n?, we m?? ?h???? the ?????ng?r ?r ?th?r m?ving ??r? on th? r??d. L?t u? ???l? thi? point t? Mary’s ?itu?ti?n.If Mary i? interested in h?r future ?? a Chri?ti?n, she ??n choose Christianity ?? her fr?m? of r?f?r?n??. If ?h? is interested in her future ?? ?n American, she m?? ?h???? the Am?ri??n ?ultur? ?? h?r fr?m? ?f r?f?r?n??. In ?h?rt, ?ur interest d?t?rmin?? whi?h ?ultur? we choose ?? a standard wh?n w? appraise a hum?n conduct, and th?t’? ju?t a f?n?? w?? of ???ing ??lfi?h.It futh?r proves th?t ?ultur?l r?l?tivit? i? fl?w?d.Is Th?r? a Culture-Neutral Standard ?f Right and Wrong?Th?r? is, of ??ur??, a l?t that ??n b? ??id against the ?r??ti?? ?f ?x?i?i?n. Ex?i?i?n is painful ?nd it results in the permanent l??? ?f ??x u?l pleasure. Its ?h?rt-t?rm effects include h?m?rrh?g?, t?t?nu?, ?nd septicemia. Sometimes th? woman di??. Long t?rm ?ff??t? in?lud? ?hr?ni? inf??ti?n, ???r? th?t hinder w?lking, and ??ntinuing ??in.Wh?, then, h?? it b???m? a widespread ???i?l ?r??ti??? It i? n?t ???? t? ???. Ex?i?i?n h?? no ?bvi?u? ???i?l b?n?fit?. Unlik? E?kim? infanticide, it i? n?t necessary f?r th? groups survival. Nor i? it a matter ?f religion. Ex?i?i?n is ?r??ti??d b? gr?u?? with v?ri?u? r?ligi?n?, in?luding Islam ?nd Christianity, n?ith?r of whi?h ??mm?nd it.N?v?rth?l???, a numb?r ?f reasons are giv?n in it? d?f?n??. W?m?n wh? ?r? in????bl? ?f ??xu?l ?l???ur? are ??id to b? l??? lik?l? to b? ?r?mi??u?u?; thu? th?r? will b? fewer unwanted pregnancies in unm?rri?d w?m?n.M?r??v?r, wiv?? f?r whom ??x is ?nl? a duty are less lik?l? t? be unf?ithful to their hu?b?nd?; ?nd b???u?? they will n?t b? thinking ?b?ut ??x, th?? will b? more attentive t? th? n??d? ?f th?ir husbands and ?hildr?n.Hu?b?nd?, f?r th?ir ??rt, ?r? said t? ?nj?? sex more with wiv?? who have b??n ?x?i??d. (Th? womens own l??k ?f enjoyment i? ??id t? be unimportant.)M?n will n?t w?nt un?x?i??d w?m?n, ?? th?? ?r? unclean and imm?tur?. And ?b?v? all, it h?? b??n d?n? since ?nti?uit?, ?nd we m?? n?t ?h?ng? th? ancient w???.It w?uld be ????, ?nd perhaps a bit ?rr?g?nt, t? ridicule these arguments. But w? may n?ti?? ?n important f??tur? of thi? wh?l? lin? ?f r????ning: it attempts t? ju?tif? excision b? ?h?wing th?t excision is beneficial men, w?m?n, and th?ir f?mili?? are all ??id t? be b?tt?r off when women ?r? excised. Thu? w? might ???r???h thi? reasoning, and ?x?i?i?n it??lf, by asking whi?h i? tru?: I? ?x?i?i?n, ?n the wh?l?, h?l?ful ?r h?rmful?H?r?, then, i? th? ?t?nd?rd that might m??t reasonably be u??d in thinking about excision: W? m?? ??k whether th? practice ?r?m?t?? ?r hind?r? th? w?lf?r? ?f th? ????l? wh??? liv?? ?r? ?ff??t?d b? it.And, ?? a ??r?ll?r?, we m?? ??k if there i? ?n ?lt?rn?tiv? set ?f ???i?l ?rr?ng?m?n t? th?t would d? a better job ?f ?r?m?ting th?ir w?lf?r?. If ??, w? may conclude th?t the ?xi?ting ?r??ti?? i? deficient.But thi? l??k? lik? ju?t th? ??rt of independent moral ?t?nd?rd th?t Cultural R?l?tivi?m ???? ??nn?t exist. It i? a single ?t?nd?rd that m?? b? br?ught t? bear in judging th? ?r??ti??? ?f ?n? culture, ?t ?n? tim?, in?luding our ?wn.Of ??ur??, people will n?t usually ??? thi? ?rin?i?l? ?? b?ing br?ught in fr?m the ?ut?id? t? judg? them, because, like th? rules against lying ?nd homicide, the w?lf?r? ?f it? m?mb?r? is a value int?rn?l t? all viable ?ultur??.CONCLUSION: THE TAKE AWAY“Th? id?? ?f ?ultur?l relativism i? n?thing but ?n ?x?u?? t? vi?l?t? human rights”â€" Shirin Eb?diW? h?v? id?ntified b?th wh?t i? right ?nd what is wr?ng in Cultural R?l?tivi?m. B??i??ll?, everything i? right ?? f?r it i? permitted by your culture ?r cultures.W? ??n also b?th ?gr?? that ?ultur?l relativism r??t? on an inv?lid ?rgum?nt, th?t it h?? ??n???u?n??? th?t makes it im?l?u?ibl ? on it? face, and that th? extent ?f moral di??gr??m?nt is far less than it implies.Thi? all ?dd? u? t? a ?r?tt? thorough rejection ?f th? theory. N?v?rth?l???, it i? still a very ?????ling id??, ?nd ??u m?? have th? feeling that all thi? i? a bit unfair and it ??m?h?w makes ??m? sense.After all, the theory mu?t h?v? ??m?thing g?ing f?r it, or else why has it been so influential?In fact, I think th?r? i? ??m?thing right ?b?ut Cultur?l R?l?tivi?m, ?nd n?w I want to say what that i?. Th?r? are two lessons w? should l??rn fr?m th? theory, ?v?n if w? ultim?t?l? r?j??t it.Cultural R?l?tivi?m w?rn? us, quite rightl?, about th? d?ng?r ?f ???uming th?t all our preferences ?r? based ?n ??m? absolute rational ?t?nd?rd. Th?? are n?t. M?n? (but n?t ?ll) ?f our ?r??ti??? ?r? m?r?l? ???uli?r t? ?ur ???i?t?, ?nd it i? easy t? l??? sight of th?t f??t. In r?minding us ?f it, th? th??r? does a ??rvi??.Fun?r?r? ?r??ti??? are one ?x?m?l?. Th? C?ll?ti?n?, according t? H?r?d?tu?, w?r? m?n who eat their f?th?r? a shocking idea, t? u? ?t least. But eating the flesh of th? d??d could be understood as a ?ign ?f respect. It ??uld b? taken ?? a ??mb?li? ??t that ????: W? wish thi? ??r??n? spirit t? dwell within us. Perhaps thi? w?? th? und?r?t?nding ?f the Callatians.On ?u?h a way ?f thinking, burying th? d??d ??uld b? ???n ?? an ??t of r?j??ti?n, and burning th? ??r??? ?? ???itiv?l? ???rnful. If thi? i? h?rd t? im?gin?, th?n we m?? need to have ?ur imaginations ?tr?t?h?d. Of ??ur?? we m?? f??l a vi???r?l r??ugn?n?? ?t the id?? of eating hum?n fl??h in any ?ir?um?t?n???.But wh?t ?f it?Thi? repugnance m?? b?, ?? th? r?l?tivi?t? ???, ?nl? a m?tt?r ?f wh?t is customary in ?ur ??rti?ul?r society.Th?r? ?r? m?n? other m?tt?r? that we tend t? think ?f in t?rm? ?f ?bj??tiv? right ?nd wr?ng th?t are r??ll? n?thing m?r? than social conventions. Should w?m?n ??v?r th?ir br???t?? A publicly exposed br???t i? ???nd?l?u? in ?ur society, whereas in other cultures it i? unr?m?rk?bl?.Obj??tiv?l? speakin g, it i? n?ith?r right n?r wr?ng. Th?r? i? not objective r????n wh? ?ith?r ?u?t?m is b?tt?r. Cultural R?l?tivi?m b?gin? with the v?lu?bl? in?ight th?t m?n? ?f ?ur practices ?r? lik? thi?; th?? are ?nl? ?ultur?l products.Then it g??? wr?ng b? inferring that, because some ?r??ti??? ?r? lik? thi?, all mu?t b?.Th? ????nd lesson h?? t? d? with k???ing ?n ???n mind. In the course of growing u?, ???h of u? has ???uir?d ??m? ?tr?ng f??ling?: W? have learned t? think ?f ??m? t???? of conduct ?? ?????t?bl?, ?nd ?th?r? we h?v? learned to r?j??t. O????i?n?ll?, we m?? find th??? feelings challenged.W? may ?n??unt?r someone who ?l?im? th?t our f??ling? ?r? mistaken. For example, w? m?? have b??n t?ught that homosexuality i? immoral, and we may f??l quite un??mf?rt?bl? around gay ????l? and ??? them as alien ?nd different.N?w ??m??n? ?ugg??t? th?t thi? may be a mere ?r?judi??; th?t th?r? is n?thing ?vil ?b?ut homosexuality; th?t g?? ????l? ?r? ju?t ????l?, like ?n??n? ?l??, who h????n, thr?ugh n? ?h?i?? ?f their own, t? be attracted to others ?f th? same ??x.But b???u?? we feel so ?tr?ngl? about the matter, we may find it hard to t?k? this seriously. Ev?n after w? li?t?n t? the ?rgum?nt?, w? m?? ?till h?v? the un?h?k?bl? f??ling that homosexuals mu?t, ??m?h?w, b? ?n un??v?r? lot.Cultur?l Relativism, b? ?tr???ing th?t ?ur m?r?l vi?w? ??n reflect the prejudices ?f our society, ?r?vid?? ?n antidote f?r this kind ?f d?gm?ti?m. Wh?n h? tells the story ?f the Gr??k? and Callatians, H?r?d?tu? adds:F?r if anyone, n? m?tt?r wh?, w?r? given th? ????rtunit? of ?h???ing fr?m ?m?ng?t ?ll the n?ti?n? ?f th? w?rld th? set ?f b?li?f? which h? thought b??t, h? w?uld inevitably, ?ft?r ??r?ful ??n?id?r?ti?n of th?ir r?l?tiv? m?rit?, ?h???? th?t ?f his ?wn ??untr?. Ev?r??n? with?ut ?x???ti?n believes hi? ?wn n?tiv? ?u?t?m?, ?nd the religion h? w?? brought up in, to b? the b??t.R??lizing thi? can result in ?ur h?ving m?r? open mind?. W? ??n ??m? to und?r?t?nd th?t ?ur f??ling? are n?t n??????ril ? ??r???ti?n? ?f th? truth, they m?? be n?thing more than th? r??ult of cultural ??nditi?ning.Thu? when w? hear it ?ugg??t?d that ??m? elements ?f ?ur social ??d? i? not really th? b??t, and w? find ?ur??lv?? in?tin?tiv?l? resisting th? ?ugg??ti?n, we might stop ?nd r?m?mb?r thi?. Th?n w? may be m?r? open t? di???v?ring the truth, whatever th?t might b?.W? ??n understand the appeal ?f Cultural R?l?tivi?m, then, even though th? th??r? has ??ri?u? ?h?rt??ming?. It i? ?n attractive th??r? because it is b???d ?n a g?nuin? insight th?t many ?f the ?r??ti??? and attitudes w? think ?? n?tur?l ?r? r??ll? only cultural ?r?du?t?.M?r??v?r, keeping this insight firmly in vi?w i? im??rt?nt if w? want t? ?v?id arrogance and have ???n minds.Th??? ?r? im??rt?nt points, n?t t? b? t?k?n lightl?. But w? ??n accept th??? ??int? with?ut g?ing on t? ?????t th? wh?l? theory.“Europes gr??t??t ?r?bl?m is ?ultur?l r?l?tivi?m. This h?? l?d t? a ?itu?ti?n wh?r? Eur????n? n? l?ng?r know what they should b? ?r ?ud of ?nd wh? th?? r??ll? ?r? because a so-called lib?r?l ?nd l?fti?t-im????d ??n???t ???? th?t ?ll ?ultur?? ?r? the ??m?” G??rt Wild?r?

The Dark Images Of Poison And Disease - 1324 Words

The dark images of poison and disease are portrayed throughout the story of Hamlet, and follower the corruption surrounding the recent and future events of the castle. The poison with which Claudius had murdered King Hamlet spreads in a sense throughout the country, until something is rotten in Denmark, as Marcellus notes (I.4.90). Shakespeare shades in words of sickness continually during the play, possibly helping best to exemplify the ill condition of matters plaguing not only Denmark, but the characters as well. Shakespeare immediately expresses the sense of cold and apathy in the opening scene. As the play opens in the cool, black night, Barnardo and Francisco are high atop the looming walls of Elsinore, keeping watch for the†¦show more content†¦Horatio believes that the vision of the haunting Ghost is a forewarning to Denmark, just as the pale, sick moon was to Rome an image of the ill events to come. Even future events are drearily portrayed to the reader, a sense of the power of Fortune. This force was also referred to earlier, in Hamlet s soliloquy of the slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune, going on to speak of being sicklied o er with the pale cast of thought (III.1.90), yet another image of disease. Still in the opening scenes of the play, even men outside of the country can sense the rotting inside. Scornfully, Claudius says Fortinbras thinks by our late dear brother s death, our state to be disjoint and out of frame (I.2.19-20), referring not only to the state s political confusion, but its sick state of health as well. He continues, and notes that the dying king of Norway is impotent and bedrid, and scarcely hears of his nephew s [Fortinbras] purpose (I.2.29-30) to attack Denmark. The universal illness besets all men regardless of their nationality; in particular, this idea of one not knowing about the hidden actions of another is reminiscent of the other plots in the play. The newly crowned villain, Claudius, later remarks Diseases desperate grown by desperate appliance are relieved, or not at all (IV.3.8), directly before the scene of Hamlet revealing the location of Polonius

Key Concepts Of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - 2367 Words

One of the most challenging aspects of this school program has been trying to recognize a theoretical orientation that I can identify with. Throughout the course of this class, I have discovered various aspects that have remained consistent within my personal wants and desires for group, which have allowed me to focus my attention on which approaches fit well with my style of therapy. The following will describe the key concepts of the cognitive behavioral approach; a view of the roles of the therapist and group members; key developmental tasks and therapeutic goals, techniques, and methods; and the stages in the evolution of a group. An integration of two additional theoretical orientations will also be included. Key Concepts of†¦show more content†¦The key concepts of a cognitive behavioral approach have been broken down into a four-stage process. According to Corey (2016), â€Å"the specific unique characteristics of behavior therapy include conducting a behavioral assessment, precisely spelling out collaborative treatment goals, formulating a specific treatment procedure appropriate to a particular problem, and objectively evaluating the outcomes of therapy† (p. 349). The behavioral assessment is aimed at gathering as much detailed information about the client’s problem. This part of the process will also focus on the client’s current functioning and life conditions and taking samples of his or her behaviors to provide information about how the client typically functions in various situations. Lastly, the behavioral assessment is narrowly focused and integrated with therapy. A unique aspect of the cognitive behavioral approach in group therapy is the focus on specific target areas of change. The members are responsible for formulating specific statements of the personal goals they want to achieve. The group leader is responsible for helping the members break down their goals into specific, concrete, and measureable goals. An agenda is set at the beginning of each session in a collaborative fashion with the members and group leader in order to prioritize

Business Plan †Convenience Store Free Essays

string(45) " customers flow when Buster’s is launched\." Business Plan Buster’s A cozy Store that designed for your needs [pic] Business Plan by Lydia Chan CONTENTS[pic] 1. Executive Summary Buster’s is a convenience store specialized in servicing daily needs of occupants of the office building where it is located. It offers variety of products to satisfy customers’ daily needs including snacks, pre-wrapped sandwiches, bottle/canned beverages, stationery, greeting cards, newspapers, paperback books and small gift items. We will write a custom essay sample on Business Plan – Convenience Store or any similar topic only for you Order Now The first Buster’s Store was set up in 2007, a 1,000 square feet store located in the lobby of Empire Centre in Kennedy commercial district. This store is solely owned and managed by Lydia Chan. With fully focused and correct business strategy, Buster’s been able to get break-even in the eleventh month, and reaches to an annual revenue to US$300,000 last year. It has successfully built up an image of a convenience store that is friendly and customized to the occupants of the Empire Centre and the neighborhood buildings. With the proven success of the first Buster’s Store, Lydia is fully confident to expand the business by opening a second store with identical business strategy. The key to success is to find another perfect location. The golden opportunity is now appearing, there is a new office building, Sky Tower, will be opened by end of this year. Sky Tower is just two blocks away from Empire Centre. Besides the advantage of easy management derived from the close by location of the two stores, to make this location perfect for Buster’s is that Sky Tower is an A grade eighty-storey office building which create huge number of potential customers for Buster’s. 1. Mission The Mission of Buster’s is to provide friendly service and good quality of products to occupants of the buildings. Good mix of variety product items are perfectly meet customers’ needs in their daily work lives. 2. Objectives 1. To make Buster’s the preferred convenience store for the occupants of the building where it is situated and the neighborhood. 2. To break-even by the end of the first year. 3. To achieve a net profit of 5% by year three. 3. Keys to Success 1. Establish an image that Buster’s is â€Å"their† convenience store for the customers. 2. To turn over inventory an average of 15 – 20 times per year. 3. To provide friendly service and premium quality products. 2. Company Summary The first Buster’s store is owned and operated by the founder, Lydia Chan, in Sole Proprietorship. The concept of this new venture is a convenience store that specially services occupants of the office building where it is situated. The first store was set up in 2007 located in Empire Centre in Jordan district. It is a 1,000 square feet store in the lobby with 2 full time employees. In 2009, annual revenue of this store is US$300,000. With the earned capital and experiences from the first store, Lydia believes it is the mature time to expand her business by establishing a second store. In order to strengthen the financial and professional background, the second store will be in partnership set up. 1. Ownership The new Buster’s store is privately owned corporation in partnership basis. Lydia Chan owns 75% of the second store. She will work full-time in the store in the first year to ensure smooth day to day operation. In the second year and onwards she will be half day in the first store and half day in the second one. Carmen Chan owns 25% of the second store. Carmen is the elder sister of Lydia, she is a chartered accountant in Hong Kong Bank. She will provide financial advice and assistant for Buster’s. 2. Employees Base on the experience of the first store, we anticipate two employees are sufficient for the daily operational need. There are two full-time shop assistants in the first Buster’s store, Christine and Mina. Christine, high school graduated, joined Buster’s since it was launched in 2007. Her experiences in nurturing infancy Buster’s and daily operation are valuable to the second store. She will be promoted as shop supervisor and transfer to the new store. Christine will be responsible to coach and mentor the other new hired shop assistant, service customers, keep tract inventory/replenishment and report customers’ comments/complaints to Lydia for ensuring corrective action be taken. We will hire another shop assistant to work together with Christine. Criteria are High school graduate with 1-2 years retailing sales experience. 3. Financials 1. Start-up Finance Summary Anticipated start-up cost of the new store is US$200,000. The main cost of start-up will be inventory. It is estimated that the initial inventory purchase will be $100,000. In addition, $30,000 will have to be spent on fixtures and fittings for the store. Since it is a brand new building, there will be no maintenance needed before move-in. Funding will be come from the combination of the two owners from their own savings. Lydia Chan (75% ownership) – contributes US$150,000 Carmen Chan (25% ownership) – contribute US$50,000 2. Start-up Cost Summary This table shows a summary of start-up cost and expenses [pic] 3. 3 Anticipated Revenue and Operating Cost for the First Year pic] 3. 4 Pro-forma cash flow projection for the first year of operation [pic] 5. Break even Analysis The following chart and table show the break-even analysis for Buster’s [pic] [pic] 3. 6 Anticipated return on investment in the first three Years The following table provides the anticipated return on investment from the perspective of three years into the revenue [pic] 4. Marketing /Sales 1. Sum mary of Marketing and Sales Strategy Buster’s new store will be situated in the lobby of Sky Tower, a new office building in a concentrated commercial area, Kennedy District. Busters’ key customers are occupants of Sky Tower. According to the information from the Building Management office, 80% of the total vacant units were leased out and under interior fixtures and fittings stage. These companies will be moving in within two to three months which will secure customers flow when Buster’s is launched. You read "Business Plan – Convenience Store" in category "Papers" 4. 2 Market Segmentation Occupants of the building are owners and employees of medium to sizable international corporations. They can be divided into 3 market segments : A) Aged 25 – 39 Male They require speedy service, just pick and pay. Half of them are wealthy Yuppies in managerial level, they do not mind to pay a little higher for the convenience and good quality. They are busy in work and social life, our fresh pre-wrapped sandwiches, popular bottled beverages and high end imported snacks will suit their needs. B) Aged 22 – 35 Female Same phenomenon as other prosperous cities, all ladies are keen to slim down their bodies and are cautious in selecting food. It is more obvious for this age group of ladies. They always search for healthy food and snacks. On every category of food, Buster’s will have a special corner for healthy food with notes on shelves for their easy perusal. Healthy food including vegetarian brown bread pre-wrapped sandwiches, low calories snacks, herbal tea and fruit juice types of bottled beverages and etc. These ladies may be secretaries or work in the administrative departments who are responsible to purchase stationeries for the offices. They will naturally select Buster’s for convenience while they are purchasing their own personal needs. This is a critical customers group for Buster’s. C) Miscellaneous This includes the middle-aged group, outsiders/visitors and etc that they have varied or unpredictable buying pattern. Continuous analysis of this group is required in a quarterly basis when Buster’s store is launched to ensure our service and products cover their needs. 3. Product Strategy Buster’s emphases are on friendly service and good quality of products that fit the requirements of people in their workplace. We do not just follow what selling in super markets or franchised convenience stores. We focus on customization. The following listed are the key categories for Buster’s. A) Pre-wrapped sandwiches : Homemade sandwiches with 4 different choices of fillings : egg and ham, beef, chicken breast and assorted vegetables. These are basic pre-wrapped sandwiches. In addition, we also provide small individual packed fillings such as chess, tomato, cucumber and eggs as supplements, so customers can design and make their own sandwiches in their offices. This will satisfied customers who are looking for variety of choices but without burdening our inventory. B) Bottled/Canned beverages The most popular bottled/canned beverages are available in Buster’s which including soft drinks, coffee, tea and milk. We also provide healthy drinks such as herbal tea, flower flavored tea, juice, Soya bean milk, flavored mineral water, and etc. C) Snacks Popular branded snacks of chips, chocolates, candies and gums are must items in the shelves. To take care of the needs for customers who are pursuing for healthy life, special selection of snacks such as sun-dried fruits, organic food, low calories/calcium crackers, sugar free candies/gums are also available in our â€Å"Healthy Corner†. D) Stationery and Greeting Cards To take care of the sudden or urgent needs of the office people, we will provide certain basic items of stationery and greeting cards but to cautiously control this category of goods occupying not exceed 10% of total display/shelf space. E) Gifts Small gifts can also be found in Buster’s. Regular items are gift sets of premium chocolates and tea bags which are appropriate round the year and for all occasions. Buster will display specialty gifts in front desk for festivals like New Year, Valentines’ day, Easter, Halloween, Christmas and etc. The specialty gift sets to serve both purposes of stimulating sales and decorating the store to lift up spirits. F) Newspapers Magazine The top five Best selling newspapers are available in Buster’s. 6 – 8 different categories of magazines about fashions, accessories, entertainment, computers, automobiles to cover varied customers’ desires. 4. Pricing Strategy As mentioned in the product strategy section, most of the categories are not common products as other convenience stores because Buster’s emphasis is on premium quality food and drinks. She is comparatively not facing harsh price comparison as other franchise convenience stores for different target customers. Buster’s customers, occupants of Sky Tower, mainly are yuppies and office ladies, who are willing to pay a little more for convenience and better quality. Therefore, Buster’s price ranges for key products are : ? Pre-wrapped sandwiches US$4. 0 – US$5. 5. ? Premium quality and healthy snacks US$2. 5 – US$7. 0 ? Canned/bottled beverages US1. 2 – US$3. 0 ? Common products that are also available in other convenience stores : 5 to 10 percent higher than them. Target is to reach gross margin (sales deduct cost of goods) at 37. 5 – 38% 4. 5 Promotion Strategy Buster’s customer base is concentrated and close-by, they will pass by the store everyday when they go to work. Location is our best promotion tool. Occupants of Sky Tower will know the existence of Buster, so our focus of promotion is to attract them to stop by Buster’s and to experience the difference with other ordinary convenience stores. They will be impressed by our friendly service, wide ranges and unique food and beverages. Word-of-mouth will be our largest promoter. A) Flyers Flyers, an effective and inexpensive way to notify people in Sky Tower and neighborhood buildings that their store â€Å"Buster’s† is opening soon. Flyers will be passed around at the building entrance a week before grand opening. On face side of flyers is an attractive designer sketch of the Buster’s store (sketch is used to be more attractive than photo or words), and on the reverse side is a list of product items that will be available in Buster’s. Distribution of flyers will be continuous after Buster’s is opened. Distribution spots will also be increased to cover the neighborhood buildings. B) Buster’s Card For initial purchase exceeding US$10, a Buster’s Card will be provided with a Buster’s logo stamp on it. Each $10 purchase onwards will earn a stamp. When accumulated to 5 stamps, a free gift will be given. This is effective to stimulate customers to buy more, or to request their colleagues to consolidate the purchase (Word-of-mouth advertising). Gifts are selected products from the store such as snack, stationery, chocolate, etc and will be changed each month to maintain freshness of the game. . 6 Competition Despite of having the competitive edge of location, we anticipate Buster’s will face competition from 2 areas. A) Convenience Stores This competition will be from national franchises such as 7-11 and Circle K. They have established extensive network of chain stores and are well-known to Hong Kong people. People are almost pass by two to three these conveni ence stores in their everyday life. Due to consolidation of bulk purchase, these franchises obtain strong bargaining power with suppliers for both costs of goods and payment terms. There is one 7-11 store located in the main street, 8 minutes walking distance from Sky Tower, and one Circle K in the opposite corner to 7-11. It is inevitably Sky Tower people will pass by these stores. Buster’s strategy in competing with these stores is not pricing but differentiation. ? Product flexibility Franchise convenience stores are selling standardized products regardless of demographic/geographic needs. Buster’s customer base is concentrated and focused. Products are selected according to their lifestyle, habits and preferences. We are also flexible and prompt to alter products items base on customers’ and sales feedbacks. ? Unique and high quality food and beverages Buster’s target is to have 70% of product items not identical to those convenience stores. Our tasty homemade sandwich is a typical example while other stores are selling mass produced sandwiches. ? Customers’ relationship Buster’s customers are actually our neighbors that we are working in the same building. This benefits us to build close relationship while other convenience stores focus on speedy in-and-out service. B) Plagiarist Start-up capital of lobby convenience store is comparatively lower than other main street retailing stores or franchise convenience stores. Low entrance barrier will attract people who want a start-up venture by copying the same concept as Buster’s. 5. Operation 1. Location of the business The new business venue of Buster’s will be located in the lobby floor of Sky Tower, a new office building in No. 23 Harbor Road, Kennedy District, Hong Kong. When Lydia, owner of the first Buster’s store, decided to open the second store, she had gone through serious research and calculation because location is essential to be successful and profitable. The following listed are factors why Sky Tower is the right place. ? Scale and income level of Customer base Sky Tower is an A-grade commercial building, tenants are mainly big corporations in business relating to international trading, banking and investment, insurance, accounting and etc. Anticipated total occupants will be 3,000 to 4,000. Most of them are professionals and/or high income level employees. This creates a beneficial customer base for Buster’s. ? Close by location of the two Buster’s Stores Sky Tower is just two blocks away from the first Buster’s store, this creates advantage for the owner to manage the two stores in the long run. In addition, the two stores can help each other if there is urgency for products that are out of stock. Staff can deliver the urgently needed goods to the other store within 10 minutes. ? Surroundings Sky Tower’s surroundings are also commercial buildings, with some exclusive restaurants and casual cafe. No convenience store located in adjacent buildings, just two which are 8 to 10 minutes walking distance. All these neighbors are valuable and potential for Buster’s. 2. Operation of the business A) Hours of Operation The common working hours for offices (white collar) in Hong Kong is 9:00 AM to 6:00: PM, Monday to Friday, some work on Saturday 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. For Buster’s, business hours is 8:00 AM to 7:30 PM Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM to 2:00 PM on Saturday. Opening at 8:00AM is to serve breakfast for customers. Close at 7:30 PM is to take care of the needs for customers who are required for over-time works which is very common in Hong Kong. To ensure Buster’s employees are not exhausted by long working hours, operation will be in two-shift. The 2 employees work from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and the shop manager (that is the owner) take the second shift from 10:00AM to 7:30PM. B) Service Procedures Friendly service is Buster’s emphasis and promise to our customers. This must be clearly shared with employees that without their efforts, Buster’s will not get success. They are required to follow the below listed service procedures to ensure a cheerful shopping experience to every customers. ? Greeting with smile Greet every customer with a friendly smile who enters the shop. For familiar customers, chat with them to build-up an on-going relationship. ? Serve efficiently and effectively For customers who have clear decision on what to buy, serve them efficiently. For customers who are browsing, hesitating what to buy or unfamiliar with Buster’s products, staff must to offer help by providing advices/recommendations or a brief introduction of Buster’s products according to customers’ desires. Nevertheless, no hard sale, customers are still welcomed without purchase. ? Interaction When customers prepare to pay and leave, we must to say â€Å"Thank you† and â€Å"Goodbye† with eye-contact and friendly smile. This is the last process step and interaction with customers in a transaction, it is vital to leave a cheerful image in their mind which can be deep-rooted. C) Inventory management Effective inventory management is essential for Buster’s to maintain wide variety of product items in limited space. Ultimate goal is to maintain a minimal but adequate stock and make replenishment in a weekly or bi-weekly basis depend on products’ feature and turn-over. POS system will be employed to control in-and-out systematically and to minimize human error. Cashier will input sold items automatically. Every end of the day, Christine (Shop’s supervisor) to generate and check inventory status report and pass to Shop Manager for analysis and deciding which items needed to replenish. Christine is also responsible to input data everyday when suppliers deliver goods to ensure inventory record is up-to-date. 6. Legal Issues The following listed legal documents and licenses will be well prepared and to ensure they are all completed and valid before the launch of Buster’s. Business license in partnership proprietor basis ? â€Å"Buster’s† trade mark registration ? Tenancy Agreement with Sky Tower Property Management Office ? Employment contract with the two Buster’s employees ? Purchase Medical insurance for employees ? Business Insurance Legal Consultant will be hired to ensure accuracy of legal documents and coverage . 7. Challenges A) Sustainability of Buster’s competitive edge Location is Buster’s competitive edge as we are close to the concentrated customer base. This edge will be threatened if there are any new retail tores open in the surrounding areas, they can be hypermarket or new concept food stores that tempting Sky Tower people willing to sacrifice the convenience but to walk a little bit far to try new shopping experience. B) Constantly excite customers Our customer base is young, high-income group; they have strong purchasing power that leads them to have extensive options. They pursue for premium quality and trendy commodities. It is an on-going challenge for Buster’s to keep having products that excite customers. – End – How to cite Business Plan – Convenience Store, Papers

Moral Problem McDonalds Company

An organization is established with the aim of making proceeds. The proceeds are earned in return of providing goods and services to the consumers who in return have to pay for these goods and services. An organization’s success is determined by how it relates with the general public. It is in this regard that organizations draft rules that are meant to limit their actions towards their customers and among themselves.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Moral Problem: McDonald’s Company specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More McDonald’s is among the most reputable food joints in the world. The company started from a very humble beginning but as for now it has many branches in various countries which make it a multinational organization (Funding Universe, n.d). This paper focuses on the various challenges that this organization has been experiencing and the measure that it has taken. Every business has i ts own challenges no matter how hard the management tries to eliminate setbacks. McDonald’s has managed to overcome the problem of running overseas branches but then that gap is filled by the perception of critics who argue that the organization fosters the consumption of junk food among children which is alleged to cause heart disease. According to Thilmany (2007) this statement can be very demoralizing to the administration of this organization. Utilitarian would argue that that eating foods from the company can cause obesity and heart problems, thus not a good option for the majority. But deontological consideration in this concept would suggest that following the right procedure in preparing the food justifies its consumption. In essence, the motive is not bad as asserted by deontological consideration, but the consequences are considered inappropriate. This implies that the critics don’t recognize the positive things that have been accomplished by this organizatio n. To be sincere, McDonald’s has been promoting the education of children from poor backgrounds. McDonald’s has been trying to create a balance between its employees and the customers and the neighbors as well. Children are prohibited from joining the workforce of McDonald’s. In response to the recent criticism McDonald’s food joint has introduced vegetables which are taken as a compliment to the said junk food.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Any investor must commence from a humble beginning as opposed to what many people think. Paluszek (2005) explains that the statements could be coming from the rivals of this enterprise. Rivals can insight customers in order to gain more customers. We all know that when we walk into a fast food joint nobody is forced to take what they consume. Furthermore, it is not all obese children who owe their weight to fast food joints. This is because there are some people who are genetically overweight. In response to the above mentioned allegations, McDonald’s encourages its customers to exercise regularly and also compliments its food with lots of vegetables. If one looks at this issue from another perspective its certain that McDonald’s is going an extra mile unlike the other food joints because restaurants are not under any obligation to advice their customers on what to consume. Their major role is to ensure that the food that is served in their restaurants is healthy and free from contamination. This aspects is directly related to deontological approach to ethics, which requires people to act according to rules. They do this by evaluating their suppliers to ensure they exercise cleanliness in food handling. According to Saether and Aguilera (2008), such a minor issue can lead to the crush of an enterprise that has taken so many years to nurture. It is worth noting that it tak es a longer duration to attract customers but it only takes a few days to lose them. Building confidence and trust among customers is not an easy task hence the confidence has to be safeguarded. This means that for this organization to deal with such a corporate problem it should involve the consumers directly in order to clear the underlying issues. McDonald’s has done this by establishing complaint’s office that are used to get feedback from customers. The response from customers is important because it’s used to identify the specific areas that require amendments. All in all achieving uniform customer satisfaction is not easy. References Funding Universe. (n.d). McDonald’s Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/mcdonald-s-corporation-history/Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Moral Problem: McDonald’s Company specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Paluszek, K. (2005, April 6-7). Ethics and Brand Value: Strategic Differentiation. Business and Organizational Ethics Partnership Meeting. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: Santa Clara University. Thilmany, J. (2007). Supporting Ethical Employees. HR Magazine. 52 (2). Saether, T. Aguilera, R. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in a Comparative Perspective†. The Oxford handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This essay on Moral Problem: McDonald’s Company was written and submitted by user Audriana Pacheco to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.