Cultural relativism presents a contradiction when it comes to concerns such as terrorism and

other human rights violations. If we accept cultural relativism as a defense for these activities, we are
successfully approving the validity of the cultural environment in which they occur. This presents an
issue because it implies that the activities of terrorist organizations or dictatorial governments are
justified simply because they are founded in a particular way of life.

Cultural relativism may also be used to legitimize violence and hatred against minority groups
within a culture. Individuals or groups who argue cultural ideas or practices may be viewed as a danger
to the cultural identity and integrity of the society if they are relative and cannot be assessed by
universal moral standards. As a result, these minority groups may face prejudice, persecution, and even
bloodshed.

Cultural relativism, a philosophical and anthropological concept, suggests that cultural values
and beliefs are context-dependent. It claims that there is no objective way to determine if one culture's
behaviours and beliefs are superior to another. Also, what is considered suitable behaviour in one
culture may not be in another. Furthermore, cultural relativism holds that there are no universal moral
or ethical standards. Though cultural relativism aids in understanding other cultural ideas and the
border, it cannot be used to legitimize terrorism or human rights violations.

In the case of terrorism and human rights breaches, cultural relativism can be used to argue that
these activities must be judged based on the cultural environment in which they took place, rather than
universal moral or ethical norms. According to the article, cultural relativism is an invalid argument in
situations like these.

The article declares that terrorism and other human rights violations are inherently wrong,
regardless of the historical or cultural backdrop. Using violence and pressure to achieve political goals
violates fundamental human rights, and there is no cultural context in which this is acceptable. Although
it is critical to understand the cultural and historical aspects that lead to such conduct, cultural relativism
cannot be used to justify their approval.

Also, cultural relativism may be used to justify harsh practices and systems of power. If we agree
that cultural ideas and behaviors are relative and cannot be assessed by universal moral standards, we
risk enabling harmful cultural practices to remain unchallenged. This can lead to the normalization of
acts such as early child marriage or female genital mutilation, which are accepted in some cultures but
are generally condemned as abuses of human rights.

In the end, cultural relativism is a crucial idea in comprehending different cultural concepts and
behaviors. It cannot, however, be utilized as a justifiable defense in cases of terrorism or other human
rights crimes. These activities are pure wickedness regardless of their cultural context, and cultural
relativism cannot be used to justify them. Furthermore, cultural relativism has the potential to extend
oppressive behaviors and create a contradiction in which cultural context is used to justify activities that
are generally recognized as abuses of human rights.

Instead, it is essential to recognize and promote fundamental human rights, which rely on the
belief in every human being's inherent dignity and value. Regardless of cultural context, universal human
rights provide a framework for analyzing and responding to human rights transgressions. We may strive
toward a more fair and equitable society in which all persons are valued and respected by promoting
and maintaining fundamental human rights.