Monthly Connections, Cultural Relativism

I really enjoyed the article. I especially liked the author's conclusion. He made excellent points on the subject and I found that I couldn't agree more with him.

The first thing this article made me think of was Waiting For Godot and existentialism in general. During the discussion in class, something that you (Mrs. Burnett) said stuck out in my mind. About how ridiculous it is for someone to say to someone else "no you can't come here because this is our land" even though if you think about it, we're all here and who's to say what land belongs to anyone. Now, you didn't say it like that, but that's the idea. This was an allusion to illegal immigration and immigration in general (or at least that's how I interpreted it). Anyways, after you said that, I thought that it kind of made sense for people to claim land because that's how society is. If there weren't boundaries, things could be chaotic. And I felt that this article did a good job in describing situations like that. Even if it is ridiculous to say you can't come here, this is my land, there has to be something to keep order because that's how people can live with other people. On smaller terms, most people would not let some random person off the street come into their houses. They made or paid for their houses so why should they have to? But, one could say "Hey, this is just space on the earth and who are you to tell me where I can and can't go?" I see it the same way with countries, it's the same thing but on a larger scale. And if you really want to live in a country, what's so bad about doing it by the rules?

Like the article said, everything can be seen from the different sides and with Cultural Relativism both sides are not any better or any worse than the other. So going back to the immigration issue (which isn't necessarily culture-bound but I think it can be seen using this idea), one side believes that it's okay to cross borders into countries and live in them without having used the proper procedure. Whereas the other side (which is the country) believes it is wrong that these people want to live in the country and show no concern to the laws of the country in the first place. Of course there are the existentialists in the country who believe that it is okay for anyone to come into the country because it's all land and we're just people living on the same planet. The first idea according to Cultural Relativism would be that since neither idea is better or worse than the other, people may come and go or stay as they please. In a society as big as the one on earth, this is not such a great idea for several reasons:
1. In order to co-exist, some type of order must be maintained
2. By not following the order (law) that is in place, there cannot be peaceful co-existance
3. Without peaceful co-existance, there is turbulance and chaos
4. And then we all die

So as humans, we must compromise on ethical terms (like if a woman is considered property in some countries, it isn't okay for her husband to torture her). People can come into and leave countries or stay in them. But there is a proper order for this. Why? Because this is what allows humans to live peacefully. Like the article said, it would be impossible for there to be places that allows murder or place no value on the truth. Likewise, it is impossible for there to be places to exist that have no care whether or not people come and go as they please.