James Rachel's The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism

(Intro sentence) How could one possibly defend a position like this? How could one defend moral relativism and in turn defend some of the most infamous and vile creatures that mankind’s ever produced? My goal is not to wholeheartedly defend Cultural Relativism but to give the reader an opportunity to create their own conclusion on it by presenting them with the adequate tools to analyze it. Before continuing, it is necessary I define Cultural Realism and Relativism. Cultural Realism is the stance that moral claims must be objectively true or objectively false, it allows no room for interpretation only concrete conclusions. If there is no room for interpretation, what person or entity was granted the ability to decide what is morally true or

Point six states “It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practice of other culture “ (Rachels,1986) My issue with this point is that it attempts to conclude that because Relativists don’t believe that their moral code is not superior to another cultures code that they cannot pass judgement or speak freely about other cultures, portraying Relativism as close-minded in the process. Essentially, the point that Rachel’s presents is suggesting that because cultural relativism does not acknowledge universal truths, then there is no way to pass judgement on say the Holocaust for example. This point argues that there is no process to determine whether the moral truths of Nazi Germany were right or wrong and that they are just cultural norms. But, always and at all times we are influenced by ideology that constitutes our own cultural norms. So, just by sheer opposition to our cultural norms, we can pass judgement on its radical difference. Thus, tolerance doesn’t mark cultural relativism, but actually the radical acknowledgement of cultural difference. (Try to connect thoughts to what you were saying about free speech as well how it stifles