Final answer:
While normative ethical relativism suggests that moral values are culture-specific with no universal standards, opposing views believe some practices are intrinsically immoral, such as human sacrifice. A culture might be preserved in parts, excluding practices that widely violate human rights, informed by universal ethical principles and human well-being considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The discussion about whether a culture, such as one that practices human sacrifice, should be preserved touches upon ethical dilemmas and philosophical inquiries into the nature of morality and cultural relativism. The theory of normative ethical relativism posits that morality can be socially constructed and thus varies from culture to culture. According to this theory, there are no universal moral standards that can be applied across all cultures, which can be a challenge when considering practices viewed as inhumane or unethical in one culture but not in another.
However, the argument against ethical relativism is that some actions, such as ritual human sacrifice or female genital mutilation, are inherently immoral because they cannot be justified under universally applicable ethical principles. Therefore, the preservation of a culture should not include practices that are inherently harmful or violate basic human rights, despite cultural significance or non-harmful aspects of that culture. The call for universal human rights and the upholding of certain ethical standards underlie this viewpoint, even though it may seem ethnocentric to some.
Through this lens, a culture may be preserved in part, keeping beneficial and non-harmful traditions alive, while discarding those practices that are universally condemned. These judgments often rely on contextual ethical considerations, understanding the intent and effects of cultural practices, and whether they contribute to or deter from overall human well-being.