Final answer:
Cultural absolutism asserts universal moral obligations, while cultural relativism views morality as culturally dependent. Philosophers have long sought a third alternative. Cultural relativism 2.0 advocates for understanding before judgment, offering a nuanced view that values comprehension over immediate critique.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question seems to probe the tension between cultural absolutism, where moral duties are believed to be universal and unchanging, and cultural relativism, which posits that moral values are relative to specific cultural contexts. A third alternative to these has been sought by philosophers for centuries, with Socrates being one of the early thinkers to reject both the mythopoetic absolute and the relativism of the Sophists. The Sophists held that societies create their own rules without universal standards.
Cultural relativism means understanding that cultural practices and beliefs need to be seen in the context of the particular culture they belong to, without immediate judgment. Anthropologists endeavor to comprehend the full context of cultural elements and resist dismissing them as incorrect, even when they study controversial matters. This approach is not a stance of 'anything goes', but rather a deliberate effort to understand before evaluating.
However, the notion of cultural relativism has been adapted in modern discourse to what Michael Brown calls cultural relativism 2.0. This updated view encourages a pause before judgment and a commitment to widen one's perspective in order to understand why cultural norms differ globally. Despite this, the adherence to absolutism or a return to religious principles is noted as a reaction against the unfettered relativism perceived in some postmodern views, leading some to seek solace in the absolute moral frameworks provided by religions like Islam or Christianity.