Cultural Relativism And Ethical Objectivism/Universalism

Cultural Relativism and Ethical Objectivism/Universalism are two approaches to morality. There are benefits and issues with either approach. However, after close examination and evaluation, it is clear that the reasoning behind Ethical Objectivism is more sound.
Cultural Relativists believe that each society is entitled to their own opinion of what is morally right and wrong . Cultural Relativism is the theory that all moral standards are relative to one’s own culture and society; therefore, universal ethical codes do not exist . The basis of Cultural Relativism on these two principles is unconvincing.
Ethical Objectivism is the theory that there are a small number of moral values that exist for everyone . These universal values include, but are not limited to: the prevention and limitation of war, genocide, and prohibition of unreasonable harm . Ethical Objectivists hold true to the fact that these core values must be obeyed by all cultures and societies at all times . Ethical Objectivists promote what is best for society as a whole and work towards equal and reasonable treatment of all, which is why Ethical Objectivism is a philosophically more defensible position.
First and foremost, for a society to peacefully exist there

must be a sense of reason. Ethical Objectivism offers a greater sense of reason and rationality than Cultural Relativism. Ethical Objectivists are not opposed to accepting cultural differences; they merely “come into play when a morally questionable situation arises” . Based on the well being of all humans, there are certain standards of morality that must be upheld in all societies.
The harm principle states that a custom is wrong if it imposes permanent damage or harm upon an individual . Looking at the cases of female circumcision and genital mutilation in parts of Africa and the Middle East, there is evidence that these practices are causing permanent harm to the women whom they are being inflicted upon . As Kopelman stated, these women are experiencing “extreme pain, bleeding, shock, and in some cases psychological disturbances.” Female circumcision and genital mutilation is wrong because the women are negatively affected by such practices.
As a strong component of rationality, The Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself”, provides additional support to Ethical Objectivism . The Golden Rule is often remembered in personal situations but it seems to be forgotten in the grand scheme of things. It directly relates to the idea that there are core moral values existing in all societies. These core values, related to lying and murder , along with war and unreasonable harm , need to be consistent throughout all societies in order to maintain well-functioning environments.
Ethical Objectivism also includes a shared sense of human nature. The universal values can be considered as a way to look out for others and promote comradeship between societies. It is extremely important for the medically literate to spread their knowledge of the dangers of such harmful practices . It is important to examine the evidence behind questionable customs in order to determine their true effect on the afflicted individuals and to promote the well being of all individuals.
In order to successfully defend Ethical Objectivism we must examine the flaws with Cultural Relativism. The first major issue with Cultural Relativism is that those who support this stance of morality cannot talk about progress . Times have changed. As stated in Rachels and Rachels, a reasonable number of changes in society have been for the better . There is no reason to continuously practice customs that originated in the 18th century. No matter how little the degree, progress has been made in each aspect of nearly every society. For one to state that progress cannot be spoken of is simply ridiculous. Take for example the changing role of women, especially in Western culture. During the 19th and part of the 20th century, women were primarily homemakers, providing for the men and children, preparing meals, and keeping the home suitable for living. Women then played important roles during time of war and international crisis serving as nurses and caretakers. Nowadays, women are among the most powerful individuals in business, government, and education. If that is not progress, then what is?
Another issue with Cultural Relativism is that one cannot criticize the customs of other cultures . This poses a severe threat to the overall integrity of human nature. We humans are responsible for looking out for others and taking action when needed and without the ability to criticize other cultures we will fail. Let’s refer back to the popularity of female circumcision and genital mutilation in African and Middle-Eastern countries . If we were unable to deem other culture’s practices harmful, then we would undergo criticism ourselves because we are completely aware of the physical and mental harm that is caused by such practices. By following the Cultural Relativists approach, we would be causing more harm to those whom the practice is imposed upon.
Nagel’s “Golden Rule” is a criticized aspect of Ethical Objectivism. The question, “how would you feel if someone did that to you?” is often not held in high regard. People often respond with arrogance, stating “I would not like it, but no one is doing it to me. ” Responding like so shows that the person completely missed the entire point of the question . The point of the question is to get the person to really think about how their actions are affecting others. Let’s say an angry person was about to punch someone else in the face. This person may realize that they would not appreciate if the action were imposed upon them, then realize that it may cause harm to others, and finally conclude that the action may be unnecessary . But what if they claimed that they are okay with it? Does this mean we can generalize punching people in the face? The simple answer is no, we cannot. The reasoning behind this is that generalization would require approval of a whole society. Since members of society today have such different views on what is right and wrong, unanimous approval is very difficult to obtain. Therefore, this criticism becomes invalid.
Perhaps the most criticized aspect of Ethical Objectivism is the harm principle.

In the case of female circumcision and genital mutilation, the harm principle is objected because members of the societies who are imposing this practice upon its women believe there is a religious root that prevents them from terminating the practice . Since this ritual is most commonly practiced in Muslim societies, if it did in fact have religious roots, then the Koran would require it. However, female circumcision and genital mutilation “is not required by the Koran”, it is simply suggested . The societies who criticize the harm principle have not accurately interpreted what is stated in the Koran, so their criticism of the harm principle is

irrelevant.
Cultural Relativism and Ethical Objectivism/Universalism are two widely debated approaches to morality. While there are pros and cons to either approach, Ethical Objectivism provides more sound reasoning, which is why it prevails.