More handpicked essays just for you.
Why it is important to understand the concept of cultural relativism
Why it is important to understand the concept of cultural relativism
Explain briefly what cultural relativism is
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Today's topic is on whether morality is completely relative or whether there are any moral absolutes. We as individuals and as a culture have certain sets of morals and ideals that we stand by. Whether or not certain morals carry over to various cultures or if morals are unique to that culture is left up to debate between Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Today I will try to show that James Rachels argument is logically stronger than Ruth Benedict's argument
Ruth Benedict is an American anthropologist who views morality as dependent on the varying histories and environments of different cultures. Benedict argues that many cultures are completely opposite when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle, rather than having a strict
…show more content…
set of universal rules that govern the morality of different cultures. Certain aspects of cultures simply cannot be unified under one universal moral code that governs all of the human race. In her essay, “A Defense of Ethical Relativism”, Ruth Benedict is a supporter of the idea that the morals of different cultures of people are the result of years and years of cultural evolution, through isolation of and contact with other cultures. According to Benedict, all cultures and their people start out with a push in a certain direction of moral standards. As time goes on, certain actions begin to become agreeable, while others not so much. If a normal member of one culture were to be transplanted into a significantly different culture, they would be considered rather abnormal to others in that culture. One example Benedict uses is the cultural attitude toward homosexuals. Nowadays, homosexuality is widely debated on whether or not "gay is okay", but it has not always such. Among many American Indian tribes there exists a group known as the berdache. Certain men whom reached puberty took up the dress and occupations of women. At times, they even married other men and shared living quarters together. The berdaches were never looked down upon, but rather as leaders in the occupations normally known to women. Unlike today, they were not shunned from society and were still able to participate in daily life. James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is invalid, that the conclusion does not follow the premise.
To support his argument, he gives an example of the Eskimo practice of infanticide. According to Rachels, Eskimo mothers often kill the female babies after birth, without any sort of social repercussion While this may seem heartless to most cultures, we must ask ourselves why they would do such a thing. The Eskimos are a nomadic tribe whose male members are often killed while hunting or from the extremely cold temperatures. Therefore, the killing of female babies when born helps to keep the population from becoming overwhelmingly female and while making sure that hunters will always be available. As Eskimos are nomadic, tribes are constantly on the move in search of food, so the less children helps to reduce the burden on the family whilst traveling. Mothers can only carry one baby in her parka and other family members are not always available to carry the other children. This isn't to say that the mothers who perform infanticide do not love their children, as they do indeed love their offspring. However, living in the environment that they do is incredibly difficult and everything that is done, is done in order to survive. An Eskimo child is actually nursed much longer than that of a westerner. Eskimo mothers generally nurse their children from their breast for four years, and sometimes longer. The Cultural Relativism Argument can be shown as follows: 1. While …show more content…
Americans believe the infanticide is immoral, the Eskimos find nothing wrong with it 2. Therefore, infanticide is neither right nor wrong as it is a matter of opinion which varies from culture to culture. This argument is not a sound argument because the conclusion does not follow the premise. The premise focuses on what people believe while the conclusion focuses on what the reality is. Ruth Benedict is correct in her conclusions that many aspects of the lives of people within a culture are pretty exclusive to that particular culture.
Most cultures do not have a reason to believe that their fellow members are out to poison them with black magic. In fact, it can be assumed that even those cultures whom share such a belief do not have any reason to. It is, however, difficult to find an underlying unique factor that is shared by all cultures and that would drive a culture to hold that specific belief. Ruth Benedict is quite correct in her analysis of the differences between cultures. There are a few attributes of societies that are not based upon any widespread good code. There is no rule that expresses that ethical societies must submit to such a code, and that any society that does not will be not moral. There are some essential good codes that each society must comply with to survive, for example, the fundamental judgment of homicide (exemptions, for example, self-protection, aside) and the valuation of the youthful however as Benedict states, profound quality varies in every general public, and is a helpful term for socially sanction propensities." indeed, societies are just guided by extremely essential all inclusive good codes needed for survival. As a rule, silly murder is to be viewed as a negative activity that is impeding to the advancing of society. Along those same lines, it is basic that the youthful of the general public be watched over so
that they may convey it into what's to come. After those essential thoughts, which are the need for all inclusive good codes, societies will start to differ generally. Every society has its own particular individual systems to guarantee its survival that are not in light of any specific attach to the whole human race or its ethics, as they are on ecological components and communications with different societies. Benedict utilizes great cases to bolster her focuses.
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
In Ruth Benedict’s “Ethics are Relative”, she argues that because morals and values change with time and across culture, there can be no solid judgment for any action to be consistently deemed “right” or “wrong”, since the same action will be viewed differently when considered from different points of view. Benedict’s primary assertion is that the ethics seen as good or bad by modern cultures are not better to those found in primitive cultures, but are the values we have developed over time. “Most of the simpler cultures did not gain the wide currency of the one which, out of our experience, we identify with human nature, but this was for various historical reasons, and certainly not for any that gives us as its carriers a monopoly of social
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
Both women have very interesting ideas about ethics and how these ethics play into this topic. Part Two: Argument Analysis Ruth Benedict was an advocate of “cultural relativism”. Chaffee explains what cultural relativism is with the following definition, “cultural relativism is the view that cultural norms determine what is ethically right and wrong “(414). This means that each culture decides what is right or wrong inside the culture they live in. Cultural relativism is Benedict’s argument.
In John Ludwig Mackie’s book Inventing Right and Wrong, he claims that “in making moral judgments we are pointing to something objectively prescriptive, but that these judgments are all false”. By saying this, he supports his main point that there are no objective values. However, John McDowell will be against Mackie’s argument, for he suggests that besides primary qualities, there are also secondary qualities that can be objective. I hold the same viewpoint as McDowell’s. In this essay, I will firstly explain Mackie’s argument, then illustrate McDowell’s objections, and finally explore some potential responses by Mackie.
The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on John Ludwig Mackie’s argument that all moral judgments are false considering they presuppose moral objectivity which is itself inaccurate. To do so, I shall explain Mackie’s reasoning as to why the belief that moral values are objective was founded, and clarify Mackie’s arguments for why such an idea is misleading. Furthermore, I shall demonstrate how John McDowell’s color analogy can successfully prove Mackie wrong. The argument of this essay will establish that Mackie is immune to the idea of moral objectivity for he finds it queer and unsupportive of the relativity shown throughout the world. However, Mackie fails to acknowledge that properties that are dependent on
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
The objections I have to Rachels' argument against morality being relative are pretty much limited to the way he applies his examples. He applies them in a way to win the support of the reader, but looking further into them, they don't seem to be accurately applied or in some cases even seem hypocritical to those ideas of cultural relativism that he does support. There are some glaring problems I have with Rachels' argument, otherwise he does bring up some good points about what he thinks is right regarding cultural relativism, and several of those examples that he does use are illustrated in a way to be understood by someone as simple as myself.
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
Viewed from this perspective, the argument for cultural relativism is not valid. For example, the premise could be female circumcision is allowed and moral in Nigeria. Female circumcision is prohibited and immoral in the U.S. Therefore, the conclusion, would be that female circumcision is neither moral nor immoral, objectively. Simply stating, there are some beliefs that are viewed as moral by one culture and immoral by another culture does not prove whether it is objectively right or wrong.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon 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.
Arthur, John, and Scalet, Steven, eds. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Eighth Edition, 2009.
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.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.