The meta-ethical theory of relativism claims that there is no universal moral standard that can be used to evaluate the practices and beliefs of other cultures. For the relativist, 'true' only means 'true for my culture', while at the same time, what someone in another culture deems as true, regardless of the contrast, can be equally so (Williams 1976: 34). This means that the criterion for what is deemed acceptable for a given society, is reflective of the views of the prevailing culture. I disagree with this meta-ethical view. At first glance, the theory of relativism might appear as one of respect and tolerance, however, after closer analysis it leads to sharp division between different societies (Midgley 1993: 175), which in an increasingly integrated and globalised world, cannot really hold. A relativist division between cultures can only be managed if we don blinkers and ignore situations that through sound understanding are proven to be wrong. There are claims that are better than others, and if a moral claim is based on incorrect understanding, it should be challenged and shown to be problematic (Dawkins 2004: 17-22).
Relativism isn't inherently focused on consequences. It is a theory that stems from the fact of vast variation in ethical views that are found across humanity (Wong 1993: 443), which proponents of the theory have seen this fact as a source of strength for relativism. Furthermore, it has been claimed that from this, because different groups hold different moral claims, they should do so, because such divergence shows that there are no universal standards that regulate what is correct (Furrow 2005: 35). For the relativist, moral judgement is to be relegated to within one's own culture. Judgements outside of t...
... middle of paper ...
...nt to those of the prevailing order. In a global world we should strive to develop greater social and ethical cohesion. Relativism is a hindrance to such an endeavour, a limiting theory that places great restraints and boundaries upon judgement, criticism, and interaction, which therefore limits the development of ethics.
Works Cited
Dawkins, R. (2004) A Devil's Chaplain. London: Phoenix.
Furrow, D. (2005) Ethics; Key Concepts in Philosophy. London: Continuum.
Midgley, M. (1993) 'Trying Out One's New Sword', in Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. Sommers & Sommers (eds.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. (1976) Morality; an Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, D. (1993) 'Relativism', in A Companion to Ethics. Singer (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these arguments.
As we all know, all humans are different and that people do things differently around the world. People dress differently, eat differently, speak different languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have many different customs. In, cultural relativism is appropriate in some respects. For example, food, clothing, language, and driving rules are different within cultures, and it is important that these relative differences remain. However, these are not issues of universal "right" and "wrong," mathematical certainty, or issues of "truth." In a relativistic society, we have no right to judge or punish anyone. Right and wrong are now defined by socialization. Society changes and morality becomes a moving target. In fact, if the standard of right and wrong is based on relativism, then society has no standards at
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. ...
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and it
Moral relativists believe that no one has the right to judge another individuals choice, decisions, or lifestyle because however they choose to live is right for them. In addition everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs and to impose those beliefs on another individual is wrong. At first glance moral relativism may appear ideal in allowing for individual freedom. After all why shouldn’t each individual be entitled to their own idea of moral values and why should others force their beliefs on anyone else. “American philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), tells us, what is right is only what the individual thinks is right. There is no higher court of appeals, no higher, universal, or absolute moral standard.” (pg 121) Moral relativism means if does not feel wrong than it must be right.
Before moving in to the pros and cons of such a theory, we should talk about what moral relativism entails. According to moral relativism, there is not a single true or just morality. There are a variety of moral frames of reference, and whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, is relative to one or another moral frame of reference. An action can be morally right relative to one moral frame of reference and morally wrong relative to another. Morals and values are subject to the context of the culture in which they are created, and therefore are subjectively good and bad. Since our moral beliefs are the result of an implicit bargaining process among persons of widely varying wealth and strength, no principle will emerge as generally acceptable unless it benefits all the parties to the bargaining. Now that you have a feel for what mo...
A question raised when we discuss metaethics is; objective moral standards or facts. Whenever we talk about cultural relativism then the question about the existence of objective moral facts gets heated. Cultural Relativism believes that the things that is right or wrong which is known as morality, is based on what culture tells us is right or wrong. Basically society and culture tells us what’s acceptable and what unacceptable. For instance the United States has taught us that driving on the right side of the rode is acceptable. The U.S society has taught us that we should go on green, slow down on yellow and stop on red. Hope that gave you a little understand of what culture relativism mean. Culture Relativism has some failures when they
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.
The relativism ethical theory is one that claims that there aren't any collective and universal moral principles. The relativism theory claims that the rights and wrongs of actions change according to the society to which they are being applied to, there are no definite moral standards that apply to all men at all societies. The theory claims that each society defines its own values and the core principles that apply for morality. And that since it has always been that way it is unalterable and will always remain so. And also, whenever principles of morality are involved ethics are always
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
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different