Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticism on ethical relativism
Essays on cultural relativism
Essays on cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criticism on ethical relativism
In his “Of Headhunters and Soldiers”, Renato Rosaldo makes a vivid distinction between cultural relativism and ethical relativism from his own personal experience. According to Rosaldo, cultural relativism focuses on human differences and the acquisition and adherence to one’s culture after birth. He references Ruth Benedict and further expands on the notion that all cultures are equally valid and that patterns of life cannot be scale down into grades (excellent, good, medium, below medium). Next, Rosaldo defines ethical relativism as a subset of cultural relativism pertaining to moral aspects of various cultural practices. The adoption of ethical relativism will hinder one’s ability to critically assess right versus wrong and good versus …show more content…
Initially, Rosaldo is terrified of the headhunting practices of the llongots and unconsciously associate the group as blood lusting and violence driven people. However, when he told them that he is drafted to fight in the Vietnam War the llongots provided a reaction that is polar opposite to “their nature” that Rosaldo has expected. Rosaldo comes to realize that headhunting to him is viewed the same way as war is viewed by the llongots. Rosaldo’s revelation can be summarized in that we, as a society, fears cannibalism and headhunting practiced by other subcultures, but failed to recognize that these subcultures also fear modern warfare practiced by dominant industrialized cultures like us. He concludes with a poem with the theme that each culture has its own moral threshold and certain practices we take for granted can inspire abhorrence from other …show more content…
I also share the same feeling with Rosaldo on this one. I agree that one must learn to “familiarize itself with divergent value systems” in the diverse world that we live in today, but at the same time we need a set of moral standards in order for moral universality to exist. However, when relativist tenet is applied to ethics, I disagree with Kluckhohn’s statement in that “different values in human cultures are not so much ethical as they are matters of taste.” I believe the differences in languages, clothing styles, and food rituals are the somewhat inessential aspects of culture that can be loosely interpreted in terms of relativity because these differences do not pose a threat to human nature and morality. Nevertheless, there are some cultural differences that are so extreme and detrimental to the universal notion of morality that associating them to merely differences in taste is very unreasonable to say the least. In addition, I somewhat disagree with the author’s view in that one can hold a position as ethical without the need to be universal. The recognition of universality in ethics does not literally mean that you have “to wait for a consensus of the whole world, of every form of life, every language, every culture” before having a judgment of your own. Since a person is free to think, he can have
Dien Cai Dau by Yusef Komunyakaa is a collection of poems based on Komunyakaa’s personal experiences of the Vietnam War. He describes his experiences and observations in a way that isn’t as gritty and raw as some veterans, but still shows the horrors of war and the struggle to survive. What makes Komunyakaa’s work different is the emotion he uses when talking about the war. He tells it like it is and puts the reader in the soldiers’ shoes, allowing them to camouflage themselves and skulk around the jungles of Vietnam from the very first lines of “Camouflaging the Chimera.” Komunyakaa’s title Dien Cai Dau means “crazy” in Vietnamese and is an appropriate title based on the mind set of this veteran soldier. Two common themes I have found in Komunyakaa’s
Bruce Weigl’s work gives readers an accurate glimpse of what took place in Vietnam. His poetry reveals a harsher reality of the war that goes beyond the raw number of people who perished. The idea that real human beings are casualties in war is a burden Weigl and fellow Vietnam War poets share. To this day American’s simply see the fallen as just names and bodies, nothing further. Weigl serves as a forefront example of just how painful and disturbing the war was and his poetry is greatly influenced by it in nearly every facet. Moreover, it’s a reminder that the images he witnessed are unforgettable and are completely ingrained in his mind to the point where horror is the focus and projecting it as beautiful if his main goal.
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
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
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
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
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. ...
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
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.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Moral practices are different in many cultures. There are cultural practices that you would expect to be immoral all over the world, but it is not. For example, I do not understand how anyone would feel it is normal to eat love ones who have died. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. It is normal for others to burn the dead. In my culture, we bury the dead. Because I feel it is inhuman for someone to eat their loves after they have died does not give me the right to tell them they are wrong and I am right. This is the means behind ethical relativism. T...
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.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
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