Morality is Relative
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
The first mistake is in his comparison following the example of there being different moral codes. In outlining and explaining the cultural differences argument, he gives an example that he began the article with regarding the Callatians and the Greeks, and their differences in funerary practices. Rachels asks that "from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter?" His answer is that "no," and that the answer one could derive is that one of those beliefs is altogether incorrect and wrong. Here Rachels' statement seems to negate that which he wants to negate but it is through manipulation of the parties involved and the adding of "facts' that aren't there. These two cultures in his example to not disagree about anything, there are simply two different ways they deal with death. Because they are different, doesn't necessarily imply there is any disagreement. So my answer is yes, this example does mean that there is no objective truth, because we cannot say that their practice (Greeks vs. the Callatians) is incorrect or immoral as much as they can say our practices are immoral. To label a culture's belief in certain practices as possibly being "mistaken," doesn't sound very openminded in any way at all.
The next example Rachels uses to make his point clearer, is that in certain societies, because they believe that the earth is fla...
... middle of paper ...
...slavery.
The objections I have to Rachels' argument against morality being relative are pretty much limited to the way he applies his examples. He applies them in a way to win the support of the reader, but looking further into them, they don't seem to be accurately applied or in some cases even seem hypocritical to those ideas of cultural relativism that he does support. There are some glaring problems I have with Rachels' argument, otherwise he does bring up some good points about what he thinks is right regarding cultural relativism, and several of those examples that he does use are illustrated in a way to be understood by someone as simple as myself.
Bibliography:
Bibliography
1."Morality is Not Relative," by James Rachels, edited by Louis Pojman, collected in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Wadsworth Publishing 1999.
Slaveowners during the mid 19th century treated their slaves as nothing more than laboring animals, for the one and only purpose of carrying out their “masters” orders. But literacy was not coincidentally separated from the slaves lives. “Mr. Auld found out and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read “(45). This quote occurs in the book, when Douglass’s new owner Mrs. Auld (whom is new to slave owning), teaches Douglass to read. Mr. Auld finds out and forbids Mrs. Auld to teach him further. Mr. Auld describes teaching slaves to read as unlawful and unsafe. To describe something as unsafe, is to imply it has the power to threaten someone or somethings safety. In this case the safety is the white mans ability to control and suppress slaves. Douglass from this experience is disappointed that his education has been interrupted. Even though it becomes more difficult to learn to read after that, Douglass learns something even more important from the experience: the mysterious power of education. The fact that Mr. Auld doesn 't want him to read, shows him that there 's something valuable there, making him want to learn to read even more. “… if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read,
During the days of slavery many slaves did not know the alphabet, let alone reading and writing. Douglass feels distant from his close ones and is often stressed about his situation. Sometimes, he would be so tensed that he feels that there is no other option than to take his own life in order to be free and escape the misery of slavery. Frederick Douglass was stressed and he would find himself “regretting [his] own existence, and now wishing [himself] dead;” he had no doubt that “[he] should have killed [himself]” (146). Douglass is clearly suffering from the knowledge he gains because it leads him to be estranged and makes him often want to end his own life. This is not a good practice for anyone in life for the reason that life is precious and it should never be taken for granted. Before Douglass learns how to read, he was content with his condition as a slave, but this proved a cruel incident that occurred in his life by making him
Throughout his essay, Professor Beckwith critiques the arguments primarily used to support moral relativism from cultural and individual differences. Beckwith states that there are four main problems with moral relativism: relativism does not follow from disagreement, disagreement counts against moral relativism, disagreement is overrated, and absurd consequences follow from moral relativism.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
Frederick Douglass was born into slavery and is brought up knowing very little about what separates him from the rest. This however does not keep him from his desire to be different from everyone around him. Early on he develops an idea that of “Positive Liberty,” which means one that can control his own destiny. Freedom is seen as positive because it offers a lot less restrains than what he was currently receiving from living on Anthony’s plantation. Anthony the plantation owner was most likely his father as it is often that the masters raped their slaves to produce more. Through anger and
Morgan, Michael L., ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd Edition. Indianapolis. Hackett, 2001.
Douglass knew that ignorance or lack of knowledge was the real slave and knowledge was the path to freedom, to a new life. Douglass believed that all people are created equal, but we weren’t just born free, we have to make ourselves into who we are and what we want to be. The worst thing about slavery is it prevents people from improving themselves through education. Douglass worked by making himself free not physically but also mentally free by expanding his horizons through various different forms of education. By furthering his education and improving himself to be the best person he could be, Douglass was free in a way, free to the fact that he wasn’t going to be the person the slaveholders wanted him to be, he was determined and willing to find his own freedom by any means. This autobiography proves that knowledge or education is the ultimate path to freedom, either mentally or physically. A person can push themselves to the limit of starvation, loneliness, and physical pain by winning their mental freedom, knowing that with a little bit of determination and education it can truly transform a person’s life and Douglass not only shows this throughout his autobiography but lived through it and proved
In order for Douglass to reach his goal of becoming a free man he thought the only way out was education. He needed to learn how to read, write, and think for himself about what slavery was. Since literacy and education were so powerful to Frederick he persevered to get himself the education he wanted. …. Douglass knew it wouldn’t be easy, but that didn’t stop him. Douglass realized the “ conscious of the difficulty of learning without a teacher, I set out with a high hope, and
In the essay “Learning to Read and Write,” Frederick Douglass illustrates how he successfully overcome the tremendous difficulties to become literate. He also explains the injustice between slavers and slaveholders. Douglass believes that education is the key to freedom for slavers. Similarly, many of us regard education as the path to achieve a career from a job.
To his credit, Vaughn acknowledges that “diversity of moral judgements among cultures is a reality” (15). He also rightly states that just because such diversity exists does not mean that there is no objective moral truth. I can also find no issue with Vaughn’s assertion that such disagreements “may simply indicate that there is an objective fact of the matter that someone (or everyone) is wrong about” (15). However, neither does it logically follow that there is an objective moral truth – I will return to this issue in a moment. Vaughn then goes on make a similar argument against cultural relativism as he did subjective relativism, “if a culture genuinely approves of an action, then there can be no question about the action’s moral rightness” (16). As with his assertion that a murder’s moral acceptance of his crime implies its moral rightness, this claim confuses cultural relativism’s larger point, which is that morality is an agreed upon cultural convention, not an objective law like those governing like gravity or evolution. Outside cultures would not be wrong to question another culture’s moral rightness. They would simply be doing so according to their own moral standard instead of some objective one. Vaughn then goes onto say “cultural relativism implies there cannot be any such thing as moral progress” (16). The question arises, why are we assuming that there must be moral progress? His following argument is that social reformers cannot exist in cultural relativism. This claim arises from an overly narrow definition of a culture. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. may have been wrong according to the conservative white culture of his time, he was right according to the African American culture of his time. Cultural relativism does not deny that cultural trends can shift over time, so the modern prevalence of his morality does not undermine the theory. Cultural relativism
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
Rachels says that “different cultures have different moral codes” and I believe that is true what might be okay in one culture could be absolutely immoral in another. His reference to what Daruis notice between the Greeks and the Callatians can show us that each culture has their own method of dealing with a situation. As well as the Eskimos who had multiple wife and use the method of infanticide. This being unheard of, immoral to the people of America but since the time of Herodotus they have notice “the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture.” I think this concept is right however, I haven’t actually seen a culture as different as my, I have seen some small differences and I know some culture have big differences to mine but I haven’t encounter them. I...
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
Implicit in the basic formulations for both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any another. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified.