There are over a billion people living on Earth. If one were to break it down by race, location, culture and religion we tend to get a percentage on mind. And each individual or group will grow up differently from each other. Thus, viewing the world and the makes of their beliefs to differ as well. Some will point to others and accuse the party’s action of being wrong and to say they are right or vice versa. This is Cultural Relativism. As Harry Gensler defines it on his own words “[W]hat is right or wrong depends entirely on the customs that have arisen in different societies.” (pg.183) However, getting deeper into the foundations of Culture Relativism crosses some problematic issues. Here I will discuss how Culture Relativism some of the …show more content…
Yet, over the years Africans Americans believed that they are in fact human beings and cannot be slaves and be the same as a white person. The same to be told of a white man that they are slave’s regardless. However, when it came of President Lincoln who passed the proclamation to that all slaves shall be free, many agreed and disagreed of this issue. This result created many issues over the years. Moral progress was made within the society. Therefore, we have a) Those who agrees that the blacks were to be free and b) Those that still hold the favor of blacks being slaves. Thus, making Cultural Relativism false.
A second issue presented with Cultural Relativism is that all beliefs are to be equally valid and all beliefs are not equally valid must also be at hold. (Dr. Martin, 2016) This translates that all cultural have different moral codes, but are all considered as equal based. What determines as right or wrong is determined based on the individual or societies views. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard that can be applied to all cultures. One cannot say that if someone else are right or entirely
…show more content…
Any society cannot show judgment on to another society based on their own moral codes. For example, society a) allows the motive “An Eye for An Eye”. As to say there are no justice system in place. If a person murders another man’s wife, he is then allowed to murder the man’s wife as well. To society b) All must be processed into the court of law and are considered innocent until proven guilty. Based on Cultural Relativism society b) cannot pass judgment to society a) since each are true to their own no one is superior or inferior to one another. Society b) must accept that there way of doing things are morally right. This has to be accepted even though it conflicts with society’s b moral views.
In conclusion, the issues presented within the foundations of Cultural Relativism contradicts itself to be even true. One can attest that an individual from a particular society can view differently from the society’s views. In terms, one can deny the view but approve what is right or wrong. As Harry Gensler words it one will have to either accept the terms of their society or reject Cultural Relativism entirely.
Cultural relativism is defined as the belief that no one culture is superior to another morally, politically, etc., and that all “normal” human behavior is entirely relative, depending on the cultural
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
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.
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. ...
Ethics are not universal throughout the world due to the many different persons and cultures that have different moral beliefs and ethics. However, within an area where the culture is similar and the majority of the people in society believe in the same morals and beliefs, all of their ethics can be said to be relative. Rather than believing if an action is good or bad, morals from different cultures and settings are viewed as being either accepted or not accepted. As long as an action is viewed as being accepted then that is a moral of that culture. An example of a moral being accepted in a culture when other cultures do not accept it is killing. There are some cultures that believe in the concept of suicide and/or homicide, while other
Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
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.
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.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.
Because cultural relativism means that there are moral rules that typically differ from society to society, I have to disagree with what James Rachels is saying throughout this article. The question I pondered upon while reading this article is, how does the universal truth work if each society has a different set of moral codes to follow. I believe there should be such a thing as a universal truth because there needs to be an overall societal order of how one is expected to act. An example in James Rachels article when the universal truth is proven to be invalid because of cultural relativism is when he was discussing infanticide. I had two questions I asked myself while reading this part of the article. The first question was, how is it okay for the Eskimos culture to murder a child under the age of one? The second question I had was, how is it okay to take the life of an innocent child, who has not been able to experience this world? It does not make sense, that in one culture, it is morally right to murder a child under the age of one and on the other hand another culture believes it is morally wrong. The Eskimos believed it was acceptable, whereas the Americans believe infanticide is completely wrong. The community needs to have one set of moral codes for the whole world. This is why I believe cultural relativism is incorrect and universal truths are the
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.
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