Cultural Relativism In The Middle East

Cultural relativism provides a basis for protecting various cultures and ways of life, however, in the Middle East, this way of life is not necessarily a choice, it is enforced, and so in excusing the issue on the grounds of cultural relativism is not appropriate. The ethic of cultural relativism derives from people being able to practice what they chose, aiming to prevent people from being forced to do so. The problem in the Middle East is not a matter of condemning the culture but more so allowing women the option to escape it, not forcing them to. The fundamental claim of cultural relativism is that “no culture is superior to any other”, but in using this theory to protect Middle Eastern “culture”, we are actually allowing numerous cultures

In one respect, this is true, it is not fair to follow Rousseau’s notion that people must sometimes be “forced to be free”, for this positive freedom completely contradicts the notion of freedom itself, some people would rather live less liberal lifestyles and one should be free to choose this way of life. However, what is crucial in this respect is that people are free to opt out of the domineering society and live freely. In places such as the Great Britain, Europe and The America’s, people are both free to practice orthodox and unorthodox beliefs and lifestyle’s choosing how free they wish to be. Focusing on aspects of negative liberty they are free to choose a lifestyle of freedom of which they choose. It is important to acknowledge that some people to prefer an orthodox lifestyle regardless of their religion or location. An Australian couple practices a “master”, “slave” relationship and both are content to practice this lifestyle. The wife or “slave” is happy to practice this lifestyle due to the mass amounts of pressure she underwent being a single mother. She found this lifestyle “freeing”, of course, what she was free from was existential angst and pressure. By emphasising the importance of negative freedom, not of positive, we assert the fact that men and women shan’t be forced to live equal lifestyles but will be free to. Whilst we cannot condemn the lifestyle choices a woman makes, we can condemn the fact she is compelled to live her life as an object, if this is however how she chooses to live her life then this is acceptable. However, to ensure this negative freedom to choose your way of life, there must be boundaries that allow for the state to protect women from the family’s or societies influence. So it would appear that what is necessary in this instance is “the overall “maximisation” of negative liberty”, preventing