Cultural Relativism Analysis

The consequences of accepting cultural relativism

Cultural relativists look at intercultural moral disagreement and argue there is no universally accepted ethical model because all judgements are relative. They believe moral utterances are truth-apt and determined by the majority of the group to which you belong. Cultural relativists claim that we should respect other cultures because our values are not morally superior, they are one set among many. Criticism is disrespectful because you can never completely understand the context of the ethical decisions within another culture. I argue that the consequences of accepting cultural relativism are objectionable. Firstly, it inhibits the advancement of human rights because all social practices

Thus when disagreement is morally significant we look towards what is right for ourselves (Bohlin 2013 p.606). Cultural relativists regard this as intolerant and chauvinist because occidental culture is proposed as the correct moral form, this is distastefully reminiscent of imperialism. One may recognise and respect valuable aspects of a culture, however, I argue that not all practices hold moral immunity. Cultural relativists would argue that Americans should not have punished Nazis for their treatment of Jews because they were acting from a different set of values (Schmidt 1955, p.787). Such extreme cases of violence stemming from a cultural practices are difficult to accept. A paradox exists within cultural relativism, by stating that it is wrong to judge other cultures the cultural relativist is conducting a universal judgement (Xiaorong 2007, p.162). Objective moral realism may be part of a culture and thus the cultural relativist cannot escape judging others according to their own standard. A mind free completely free from judgement is impossible to achieve and would be impractical and dangerous. The ability to decide the correct action, choose which relationships are beneficial and ultimately lead a moral life is imperative to human

By comparing behaviour to the majority of the group to which you belong, you can determine the correct course of action. I argue that this is an inaccurate method to form ethical opinions because the majority does not always behave morally. Furthermore, moral standards differ from actions, knowing you ought to do something is not equivalent to actually doing it. Therefore monitoring your behaviours according to group norms does not signify they are ethical. The treatment of refugees in Australia exemplifies this notion, we may conceptually recognise that detainment is immoral yet continue the practice. If you accept cultural relativism the processing system cannot change because it is a behaviour of the majority. Detainment disregards the Refugee Convention, ratified by Australia, which states that “no penalties will be imposed on refugees for their illegal entry or presence if they come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is under threat” (Amnesty International). By disagreeing with this group decision, you utilise an internal moral compass. A cultural relativist, however, would argue that objective judgement is flawed because it was created during childhood through the reward and reprimand of authority figures. These morals are therefore learnt and not present naturally within us, these values become second nature and we later