Relativism: The Tangible Theory

Relativism: The Tangible Theory

Since the beginning of rational thought, philosophers have searched for the true meaning of morality. Many theorists have attempted to answer this question with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal set of rules, or a way to distinguish right from wrong. Some theorists believe that this question is best answered by a single moral standard, while others debate if there can be a single solution. Cultural Relativism explores the idea that there can be no one moral standard that applies to everyone at any given time. The Kantian theory, on the other hand, states that a universal sense of duty, would most benefit humankind. I believe that the Cultural Relativist theory takes into consideration the different cultures that make up the population as a whole.
The idea of universal truth in ethics, is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that exist. These customs can not be ‘correct' or ‘ incorrect' for that implies there is an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. In today's global community people are interacting more and we are now discovering, more then ever, how diverse cultures and people really are. For these reasons the Cultural Relativist theory best defines what morality is, and where it came from.
Today all over the world people are communicating in ways never before imagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one set of morals will not adequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in the world. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits every situation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules.
Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and ethical standards to the community. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specific culture, history, and individuality. For these reasons Cultural Relativism helps the community, by letting the community set its own moral standards, rather than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposing a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different cultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to be created, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communities's religion, customs, laws, educational standards, or cult...

... middle of paper ...

...the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he would inevitably, after careful considerations of their relative merits, choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best." And this discredits the possibility that one such person can come up with a set of morals, or a true way to calculate those morals, because in fact everyone is biased to his or her own moral beliefs. Absolutism is obviously not a feasible solution due to the fact that the cultures of the world are too radically diverse to ever be able to be classified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe the
Utilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, on account of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. The
Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account of everyone's sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moral or ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, the
Relativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at this
time.