Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The criticisms of cultural relativism
The criticisms of cultural relativism
The criticisms of cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The criticisms of cultural relativism
Cassie Krone Dr. Gunes Ethics 8 September 2014 The readings in “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” and “Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life” make extremely strong arguments for both the ethical theories of cultural relativism and objectivism. After discussing these theories, I will show that objectivism is in fact the more defensible position between the two, and therefore should be the more widely accepted position in our society. Cultural relativism is the theory that all moral standards comes directly from the culture, traditions, and customs of each society, and that every culture has a different set of morals . This means that whatever the majority of the culture accepts at that given time must be morally correct and true. According to …show more content…
No two people are the same; we have different personalities, opinions, and upbringings, so the idea that we would be unable to question society undermines the existence of free thought. Taking away free thought creates a breeding ground for voiceless crimes to be committed, because society no longer has a right to consider whether or not the acts are ethical or unethical. In addition, if cultural relativism were true, this would also eradicate the use of law enforcement. This is because police officers, judges, and other officials wouldn’t have any more of an authority to determine the wrongness of an action than the rest of the community, so they would be unable to take any action to end or prevent …show more content…
This means that many times the definition of a culture becomes very blurry and that following the standards in each culture is quite difficult. An example of this in our world today can be seen in China’s underground Christian church movement. These are citizens of China who because of the government forbidding the act of preaching to other citizens are supposed to abide by the laws of the land, but are also obligated as Christians to preach the Gospel to those around them. They are wholly Chinese and wholly Christian, so forcing them to choose between the two is a difficult decision that many times leads to great persecution from the government. No person should be forced to conform to one culture, and it is close-minded and unrealistic to expect someone to obtain all of their morals from their geographical
Conventionalism is the only view of ethical relativism that grounds morality in the group or culture. Pojman states that conventionalists focus on the morality of their own culture, and do not need to concentrate on the culture of others. For example, a young individual in the United States who was raised in a certain religion, and chooses to have premarital sex. In the eyes of their religion they are wrong for their decision, but in the open-minded attitude of the U.
This displaces what it means to have culture directly influence your ideals of right and wrong. In his essay, he uses Einstein’s theory of relativity to discuss this point. He argues “ In response, a cultural relativist would again ask us to imagine that a car is travelling at 50km/h with respect to the ground but it is at rest with respect to the passenger. Of the ground and the passenger, which object do we choose as a frame of reference? The answer is obvious. We can choose whatever object we like as long as it suits our need.” This thought that the world and moral reflections of relevance to our lives may as well just be idealism in the sense off our moral obligations of right and
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 greatest thing about living in America is that we are free to have our own ideas so Cultural Relativism would never exist in America. Rachels says “1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own” (699) The Hitler regime would be a perfect example of how Cultural Relativism is not one hundred percent great. If we decided Cultural Relativism was the proper theory of ethical behavior then we could not have an opinion on Hitler’s diabolical plan to torcher the Jews and minorities. That in a society that the United States built will never happen, because we do not like sending our troops to war but we also do not like bullies. Vladimir Putin being a bully to its surrounding nations is not acceptable to the United States population, but under the idea of Cultural Relativism we could not have an opinion on whether that is right or wrong we should just accept
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. ...
In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism. 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,
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
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.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
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
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.