More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on A World View of Cultural Diversity
Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Essay on A World View of Cultural Diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
It almost appears that the cultural relativist denies a person’s ability to empathize with others, on top of ignoring the fact that people have been migrating and assimilating within different cultures since people existed. People seem to posses a great ability to understand one another. It seems odd to assume that what people have been doing for centuries would suddenly be lost to them. As I stated earlier, people largely have the same values, the differences appear in the expression of these values. I believe that these similar values allow people to understand other cultures even without being from within
"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
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
Moral relativism takes the position that moral and/or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral standards. Moreover, moral relativism takes the position that moral truths reflect those of social, cultural, and historical circumstances. It is a sociological fact that different societies have different sets of moral rules. Moral relativism is a theoretical view of morality, which states that right and wrong are always relative to a particular culture. For example, moral rules of a specific culture determines that there is no meaning to the words right or wrong other than what the culture dictates as right or wrong. Moral relativism is unique, such that peoples beliefs about right and wrong are relative to their social conditioning, that is, what people determine as truly or morally right depends on what the individual, or society believes to be right. Moral relativism is not absolute, meaning ethical truths depend on variables such as culture, social, or historical circumstances. Thus, a moral realist must even admit truth in the sociological fact that different societies have different sets of moral rules, however, a moral realist must deny that right and wrong are always determined by what the culture dictates as right or wr...
If we look at the world today, there are millions of cultures centered everywhere. With this much cultures in the world, everyone is bound to believe that they’re all different. Even though they are different in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the case, do we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge the cultural practices of other societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, we begin to have a deeper insight this idea of cultural relativism and the extent at which we should tolerate the cultural practices. The book follows Okonkwo, who is a socially popular warrior who wants to have the greatest title in the village to separate himself from his ‘weak’ father. The book goes in depth about the cultural practices of the Ibo people and what happens when missionaries come to the village to convert others. This brings up many different views on which we should decide to judge other cultures and when to interfere, and the answer is usually cultural relativism. However, cultural relativism can only keep the peace for so long before the people are forced to take action. Through cultural relativism, we should respect other cultural practices and beliefs until they threaten others by nullifying their rights. However, even though we should always find the most peaceful way to compromise with the little things, in life or death situations we must infringe the human rights in order to protect them.
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
With this in mind, cultural relativism does have limits. As each culture develops its personal moral system, one can push the principle of cultural relativism to extremes. For example, taking an extreme relativist position, one cannot oppose any culturally-accepted forms of homicide, such as infanticide (Textbook 301). Therefore, the moral complexity of taking a cultural relativist stance on various issues has been increasingly
Cultural relativism entails that all cultures are above criticism which is hard to believe. In Ruth Benedict's piece, she approaches cultural relativism as being the correct way of life. Benedict uses many different
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.
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.
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
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.
Cultural relativists promote the rights of cultures to dictate what is morally accepted within one’s own society. Cultural relativism is defined as the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it (Vaughn). This ideology is formed to prevent ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s culture is superior to another. Though in theory this sounds plausible, it does little to promote an understanding of different cultures. Since the society makes up the laws that dictates and protects its own people, universal laws of protection may not be applied. Cultural rights are important in that they protect individual cultures against the majority states and communities. (Donnelly 219). If it were not for cultural rights, the smaller cultures would cease existing along with their traditions and beliefs.
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.