As a society, we abide by certain rules and customs. For the most part we believe that our rules and customs are correct, and we agree with them. We also recognize the fact that other societies have different rules and customs, dissimilar to our own. But are they wrong? Should we judge them for their beliefs? These are the questions cultural relativism answers. Cultural relativism consents to the idea that we are not ones to judge other societies on their standards. Most importantly, morality differs in every society. What is morally right and what is morally wrong is simply subjective and determined by the society and culture within which we live. On the other side of the spectrum is dogmatism. Dogmatism is to accept what is right or wrong as incontrovertibly true regardless of others’ opinions or evidence. I will carefully develop and analyze these two contrasting views about truth and morality and evaluate which system appears to hold more weight. I will then respond to the first case study presented using my analysis of cultural relativism and dogmatism to come to a conclusion about what to do in the given circumstance.
Although generally referred to when talking about religious beliefs, dogmatism can refer to lifestyle, political, or most importantly in this context, moral views. A dogmatic viewpoint would follow the exclusive model of “my way is the only way”. If we accept this view, we can believe that we have already arrived at the truth and all differing views are wrong and do not matter. Looking at “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” by James Rachels, he gives an example of two cultures with different views. The Callatians and the Greeks both had very different ways of honoring the dead. The Callatians would ea...
... middle of paper ...
...ng as previously thought. In fact, as Rachel states, “…the argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves nothing” (Rachels 3). But putting that argument aside, what if we took cultural relativism seriously? What would the consequences be?
One of the first things that comes to mind when we consider cultural relativism is the apparent wrongdoings of other societies. A common example would be NazI Germany during World War II. If we take cultural relativism seriously we cannot criticize Hitler for his heinous acts against the Jews. In fact, we can’t even call them heinous because under cultural relativism they are no less morally inferior to our own standards. Rachels writes, “We would not even be able to say that s society tolerant of Jews is better than the anti Semitic society, for that would imply some sort of transcultural standard of comparison” (Rachels 3).
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
Rachels, J. (n.d.). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phl
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and it
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
...mplication would be significant in that it would give rise to judgment of morality outside and independent of culture. One example would be the active practice of anti-Semitism directed at the destruction of Jewish peoples. Could such a practice ever be construed as an opinion or even routine cultural custom? By any stretch it would be hard to imagine anything less than universal condemnation of killing for no other reason than genocide. This objection is strong, perhaps opening an avenue of attack toward Cultural Relativism on the basis of some type of universal morality. It is impossible to conceive of an arbiter to judge such a class of morality. Even though the example is strongly suggestive, that’s not the same as proving with certainty that there are sufficient grounds to say that it should be okay to consider any custom of another culture as inferior.
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
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.
Cultural relativism argues that what is considered moral in one society can be just as well considered wrong in another and there can be no refutation against either. As a result of this argument one could claim that if this were true, then there really are no universal truths in ethics. In the case of child labor and sweatshops, a cultural relativist would argue that regardless if we deem child labor as wrong within the United States, we would be both arrogant and in the wrong to impose that belief on any other society. Cultural relativists would argue that if a society deems an action as right then it is right within that society and all we can do is respect that. According to Green America, an organization working towards creating a socially just and environmentally sustainable society, “Sweatshops and child labor are a growing problem, particularly in clothing and textiles.” (Sweatshops) According to cultural relativists we cannot condemn child labor or sweatshops in another culture because we have defined it as illegal or a problem. To a cultural relativist, what once culture choses to be right another cannot impose their beliefs of it being
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different