Humans have notably different ethical standards which dictate what is or isn’t correct. Those standards are shared and followed by a group of people. For example, the concept of killing is not unknown. The typical response is to punish the one who commits that “crime,” even if that person was “right” to do so. However, killing may not seem like a crime to some people. Rather, to them killing is necessary for protection. Given that there are many cultures in the world, one can assume that each of those cultures is not like the other. They must all have their own ethical standards. In addition, it is suggested that a person refrains from assuming that one’s ethical standards are superior or inferior to another person’s standards. Cultural Relativism …show more content…
One person may think that another person is doing something wrong. However, the other person may believe they are surely doing the right thing. For example, disciplining a child by smacking a ruler against their palm may be viewed as a torturous act. To the person disciplining that child, this is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, altercations can occur. One person might attempt to berate the other person in an attempt to end their actions. However, some ethical standards overlap in some ways: people with different ethical standards might agree that physically disciplining a child is not the right thing to do. In another example, Someone might say that it is right to cover themselves from head-to-toe with cloth. Whereas, another person might think it is normal for them to dress in a T-shirt and some shorts. When these two people confront each other, they may begin to gaze with confusion, or even hatred, and think that the other person is doing something wrong. Who is right? Should the other person cover up, or should the covered person “loosen up?” Unfortunately, when referencing Cultural Relativism, one cannot give an answer to that. In general, Cultural Relativism is unable to tell us how to determine what is right or wrong, it simply tells us that there is no universal right or wrong. This doesn’t help when beliefs differ and issues arise. It puts people in a rough spot as they won’t know how to judge …show more content…
They know that another person may believe in what is right or wrong. Since there is no superior or inferior standard, people have to worry less about judging another culture; less time is spent worrying about that a culture has it wrong, and more time is spent on addressing issues that affect both cultures. There is a certain respect that comes out of this ideology. They may not accept the doings of another person, but they develop a particular mentality that allows them to focus on more important issues other than cultural differences. Respect prevents the division among people of different cultures. Rather, it enables them to accept, forget, and move
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
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
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
We live in a world that nothing is, as it seems. Every one is raised within societies that have different cultures and subcultures. We conform to the norm and judge the not norm as influences come from media, peers, authority, and so on because we grow into ethnocentrism people. It takes great self-awareness to separate ethnocentrism when looking at any subject matter because our social norm runs deep. But it is imperative to gain cultural relativism if you want to understand any culture outside your
For example: So euthanasia is right for person A if he approves of it, but wrong for person B if she disapproves of it, and the same would go for cultures with similarly diverging views on the subject (13). Cultural relativism seems to many to be a much more plausible doctrine. To many people this is true; supported as it is by a convincing argument and the common conviction that is admirably consistent with social tolerance and understanding in a pluralistic world (Vaughn 15). 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). 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
At first glance both Cultural Relativism and Deontology offer two appealing but different moral action guides. Cultural Relativism’s maxim of an outsider’s inability to judge is appealing and sometimes possibly correct. In The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, Rachels’ and Rachels’ critique of Cultural Relativism, an example involving Eskimos is used to display a situation where morality can be relative. The Eskimos practiced infanticide which is considered amoral to most western cultures and would bring about negative judgments on their culture. However the Eskimos did not commit infanticide because of their lack morality, but because it was necessary to their survival. (Rachels Rachels 21) In this case Cultural Relativism seems to have a case for itself, however most cases are not so clear cut as Relativism likes it to be. In order to expose this weakness, Rachels and Rachels point out female genital mutilation in Togo. In Togo it is common practice to excise a female’s genitals so she can stay more “faithful” to their spouse. A Relativist would say that if it is generally accepted within the society, then
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.
A question raised when we discuss metaethics is; objective moral standards or facts. Whenever we talk about cultural relativism then the question about the existence of objective moral facts gets heated. Cultural Relativism believes that the things that is right or wrong which is known as morality, is based on what culture tells us is right or wrong. Basically society and culture tells us what’s acceptable and what unacceptable. For instance the United States has taught us that driving on the right side of the rode is acceptable. The U.S society has taught us that we should go on green, slow down on yellow and stop on red. Hope that gave you a little understand of what culture relativism mean. Culture Relativism has some failures when they
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...
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.
15. According to the author (Fieser), does cultural relativism rule out universal moral judgments? Why or why
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