One tension that always intrigues me is between cultural relativism (the idea that moral values and practices are meaningful only within cultural contexts) and universalism (some moral truths are common to all humans). In anthropology, this is central: when do we respect cultural difference, and when do we say a practice violates universal human rights?

For example, anthropologists study rituals or practices that from outside seem oppressive (e.g. female genital cutting, child marriage). Cultural relativists argue that condemning such practices without understanding their role in local social structure can be paternalistic and destructive. Universalists counter that some harms are too great to be tolerated, regardless of cultural meaning.

I’ve found that useful frameworks often try to balance: engaging deeply with local meanings, listening to those inside the culture, and only speaking for change when harm is acknowledged and alternatives are locally viable. Tools like participatory research or collaborative anthropology help.

Thinking about theology here adds another dimension: many religious traditions claim universal moral norms. When anthropology interacts with theology or ethics, the challenge becomes honoring both particular cultural expressions and shared human dignity.