1. What is female genital mutilation, and why does the author of your textbook discuss female genital mutilation in a chapter on cultural relativism? Cultural relativism shows us how different societies create their own traditions and how they pass them down from one generation to another. I believe the author of the textbook discuss FGM in a chapter of cultural relativism because as he states in the book this action does not happen in every country and merely it is a matter of tradition among particular cultures. 2. Explain the differences between moral relativism, cultural relativism, and individual relativism. The differences between moral relativism, cultural relativism, and individual relativism are that moral relativism states that …show more content…
The first argument is the variable cultural relativism in which the moral values are based in approval by society and the values vary from one culture to the other. The second argument is the nonvariable cultural relativism which values are based on social acceptance and they are not always different from one culture to another. 8. According to Balfour, how do we determine whether a social practice reflects true morality or is simply depraved? For Balfour we should be able the notice the pronounced difference between true morality and depraved practices so we intuitively separate one from another. 9. What is the problem with Balfour’s argument according to your textbook? That he based his moral convictions in the eighteenth-century moral traditions which were influenced by Calvinistic religious beliefs. 10. According to Rachels, what are three values that are common to all societies? What are some values that do appear to vary from culture to culture? For James Rachels the three values that are common for all societies are caring for children, truth telling, and prohibitions against murder. Sexual values will be one of the values that appear to vary from culture to …show more content…
According to your textbook, what are the metaethical and normative ethical views of the cultural relativist? Metaethics investigates where morality comes from. Metaethics tries to find out if moral values even exist in an objective realm that is unknown to human society. On the other hand, normative ethics searches for the best values and guiding principles of human conduct. 14. What are the author’s (Fieser’s) three responses to the criticism that cultural relativism leads to horrible values? His first response is that even if we grant that there are objective moral principles, objectivists simply assume that these principles are fixed, unchanging, and essentially good. His second response is that the mere existence of moral principles alone does not guarantee that we will formulate our social value system in a certain way. His third response is that cultural relativists do not necessarily hold that moral values are completely arbitrary creations of human society and that some aspects of human nature might influence the kinds of customs that we approve of. 15. According to the author (Fieser), does cultural relativism rule out universal moral judgments? Why or why
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.
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
The concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong (cultural relativism, 2014).
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.
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
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. ...
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. 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. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
3a. "Vulgar relativism" is the contradictory position that there aren't any universally accepted morals. However, it is immoral to impose your ethical beliefs on someone who doesn't necessarily agree with them. As mentioned in our lecture, it makes the "vulgar relativist" wonder if we are always to be accepting of those we don't understand or simple don't agree with. This causes it to become an incoherent doctrine. It is an incoherent doctrine because it initially states that there's isn't any valid moral principles. If this is the case, then there shouldn't be the valid moral principle that prohibits an individual from seeking to influence another person's values that doesn't share the same thoughts. With many cultures around the world, there
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.
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.
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