Cultural Relativism: Objective Right Or Wrong

Cultural Relativism states that there is no objective right or wrong. Right or wrong are defined by your society’s moral code. I will provide reasons why we should not be cultural relativists. My reasons include; how it affects philosophy, the Cultural Differences Argument, examples of why it doesn’t work and societal needs.

James Rachels supplies six claims that have been made by cultural relativists.

1. Different societies have different moral codes.

2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.

3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code

better than another.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
5. There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
(James Rachels, The Elements Of Philosophy pg. 241,242)

As described in our class materials, Cultural Relativism poses a problem for the advancement of philosophy, because it teaches people not to be critical of their own morals, but to attribute them to society. The theory of Cultural Relativism disallows us to be critical of any other cultures, but also our own. Not being able to critically examine our cultures moral code means we will not actively try to improve it. Although over time societies change, the idea of improving their morals will effectively die because “There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code better than another” (James Rachels, The Elements Of Philosophy pg. 241).

Some use the cultural differences argument to try and prove cultural relativism.

An example of this argument is that, in parts of Africa female circumcision (or female genital mutilation) is a regular practice. In most “western” societies it is considered abhorrent. To a cultural relativist, female circumcision is neither objectively right nor wrong, it is just a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture. This argument states that since different groups of people disagree about something, there is no right or wrong-it just depends on where you are from. The problem with this argument is that it draws a substantial conclusion from people’s opinions. The simple fact of the matter is that people’s opinions may lead to a wrong conclusion. One or both groups of people might be wrong in their beliefs. Since the premises of both African and western cultural beliefs on this issue can both be true while the conclusion can be false, the cultural differences argument is invalid and therefore also unsound. Although this argument is invalid it does not disprove cultural relativism, however it does mean that the argument cannot be used to prove cultural

relativism.

As with many other ideologies, when you use examples at the extreme end of the spectrum the underlying problems with application are revealed.

An example of where this goes wrong is the holocaust. During the holocaust approximately six million Jewish people were killed in concentration camps and many more were forced from their homes and communities. The cultural relativist would say these actions were neither right nor wrong, merely a difference in two society’s moral codes. Another example is the recent attack in Paris. The terrorist group ISIS launched attacks in the city of Paris, killing 129 people and injuring many more. Many countries such as Germany, the US, Australia and Spain have spoken out against these attacks. According to cultural relativism, this action was neither right nor wrong because that’s what is considered morally right in that group. In fact according to the cultural relativist, the people who spoke out against these attacks are in the wrong because “It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples” (James Rachels, The Elements Of Philosophy pg.

241).

A cultural relativist might object to my premise that the actions of ISIS in Paris are fundamentally wrong. They may point out that the ISIS fighters were simply (a) following their own moral code and (b) responding to France’s bombing of the territory that ISIS claims is their “homeland”. They might argue that my criticism of ISIS is hypocritical. My response to this is that ISIS does not have any legitimate territory but, rather, they have taken over (killed and enslaved) vulnerable people living in the territory they clam.

There are some things that could be considered universal societal needs, because they are necessary for a society to survive more than a couple generations. These will not address every action someone does as right or wrong, but rather serve as a guide. Things such as child care, access to drinkable water, a consistent food source and shelter are all necessary for human survival, and should be a priority when decision making. There are also some things that relate more to society than overall survival, but must still be considered when judging one society better than another. Punishment is an example of this. Suppose there is a society that does not punish the actions of its members. Any and all laws would be pointless, because breaking the law would have no consequences. “Glaucon’s Challenge” (Plato, The Republic) says that, when there is no fear of punishment man, just or unjust, will behave in an unjust manner. This would lead to everyone behaving only in their own best interest, and society over time would become divided, to the point it couldn’t be considered a society at all.