Morality, according to Socrates, is about “how we ought to live” and why. Cultural Relativism is one among numerous disputed theories which has attempted to expand upon Socrates uncomplicated definition (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 1). This theory is unique in its five basic claims. The theories basic claims contain weaknesses, strengths and unsound argument.
As previously stated, there are five basic claims to Cultural Relativism. The first fundamental claim is that “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 17). This is certainly a reasonable claim. It is common knowledge that people from different parts of the world do things differently and it is important to understand why they do things
…show more content…
differently. The fault or weakness in this belief is that there are in fact some internationally shared moral codes (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 28). Honesty, trustworthiness, and basic justice are a few examples of values shared throughout all cultures. No society could function without them. This information goes to discredit Cultural Relativisms first claim. The second claim of Cultural Relativism is that “the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 17).
The problem with this claim is that it does not permit any disagreement of society’s moral codes even if it could lead to improvement. For instance, suppose a resident in Africa questions whether female genital mutilation is morally correct. All she would have to do is see how the ritual comply’s with her society's moral codes. If it does comply, then the ritual must be right, thus no progress to society could be made (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 21). This is because according to Cultural Relativism the only way to improve a society would be to adhere to its own ideals (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 22). This is obviously a major fault of the theory as it is clear from the past that society's moral codes can be wrong and need improvement (E.g., legal abolition of slavery, women’s rights to vote, universal …show more content…
education). The next claim the theory makes is that “there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 18). At first glance, this may seem like a valid claim. It is difficult to determine an ethical principle that could be shared worldwide. Rachels, however, is able to think of just such a principle. He states, “it always matters whether a practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people affected by it” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 29). Following such a principle only makes sense as it would rightly condemn harmful practices such as breast ironing, female genital mutilation, and female infanticide. Once again Cultural Relativism has been discredited. The theories fourth claim is that “the moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 18). This claim also seems legitimate. There is nothing about the United States that makes it better than the others, although many Americans ethnocentrically believe this to be true. Nonetheless, the illegitimacy of this claim is in its suggestion that all moral codes are evenly good and bad. That is simply not true (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 30). The fifth and final claim made by Cultural Relativist is that “it is always arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 18). There is some truth to this claim. More often than not it is arrogant for someone to condemn another’s culture’s. However, when awful acts have gone and go on in the world, they should and cannot be condoned. Imagine if the United States was “tolerant” of the Hitler’s plans to exterminate all Jews. Ergo, some kind evildoing simply cannot be tolerated. After closely examining Cultural Relativisms it is evident that its five important features are highly improbable if adhered to causing serious problems for the theories practicality.
Even more problematic than this is the evidence that the theory employs an unsound argument. According to Rachels, a common argumentative approach used by Cultural Relativists “begin[s] with facts about cultures and wind[s] up drawing a conclusion about morality” (Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy 18). This is undoubtedly an unsound argument as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To better clarify, take into account a different matter. In some societies, people believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system. In other, more advanced societies, people believe that the sun is the center of the solar system. It is obvious from this example that just because societies disagree does not mean that there is no “objective truth” in astronomy. This easy to follow example clarifies the unreasonable argument Cultural Relativists employ.
Cultural Relativisms is an influential theory regarding the explanation of morality. Its important features have some strengths. It presents a remedy for ethnocentrism and can help open up minds. The theory, however, is also full of weaknesses. It consists of unreasonable outcomes if followed through. The theory also lays on an unsound
argument.
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
Pojman’s objections to relativism center upon the existence of common human nature and experience, and that “…it is possible to communicate cross-culturally and find that we agree on many of the important things in life” (Pojman 181). This correlates to the idea of common moral concepts among different cultures and societies. In this common experience of “needs and interests” (Pojman 185), it stands to reason that certain moral practices will better serve needs and interests than others. This contrasts greatly with Benedict’s all cultures are equal proposal. Benedict makes a valid argument that people develop moral codes as a result of their culture. There is no right or wrong way to develop a society, the only tried and true method is trial
To begin, the first theory to be discussed is cultural relativism and its relationship with the minimum conception of morality. In order to do so, it is important to define both arguments; Cultural Relativism is the principle that dictates beliefs, faiths, customs and traditions within one society may be justified, but to other societies looking in, it may not. Examples include opposing religions within separate regions across the globe such as Christianity and Hinduism. The Minimum Conception of Morality follows a ut...
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.
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
Cultural Relativism has an entirely separate meaning. Because this idea defines moral principles as being rooted in the beliefs of a particular culture, it identifies right and wrong in terms of the practices of a specific group of people. For example, the Greeks would burn the bodies of their deceased members. However, the Callations would eat the bodies of their deceased. Assuming that Cultural Relativism is correct means viewing each of these practices as right for the respective culture. In the Greek culture, they say that burning bodies is how to treat the dead so this is right for their culture. On the other hand, the Callations say that eating bodies is the proper way to handle those that have passed on. Because the Callations say this is right, it is right for their culture. The same thought process holds true for practices that are seen as wrong in cultures. For example, the Japanese believe that laughing during business meetings is inappropriate. This is wrong because of Japan’s practices. Cultural Relativism makes moral assessments based on one culture’s
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
“understanding one’s own culture and other cultures can lead to more effective action across cultures” (251) This is often the perspective of social scientists who work with people and is the result of the work of anthropologist Franz Boas. Cultural relativism helps us to understand that there is not "one right way" to approach many of the aspects of daily living. It is important to try to employ cultural relativism because it helps see the society objectivity, encourages respect, creates learning opportunities that could make humanity stronger, a system of niche expertise, eliminates the concept of separate, but equal. The French society drink wine with every meal, they even allowing the children to often times join. We may consider it wrong, but it is not leading to degenerate behavior, so who are we to say it is wrong. People who practices cultural relativism start to understanding values and norms of other cultures that they were not unfamiliar
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.
Cultural and ethical relativism can often be thought to share the exact same beliefs and be one and the same, but they actually have differences. As taught in lecture, Cultural relativism is when people try and understand and become involved with other cultures that are not their own and do not use their own cultures as the norm. People are free to still have their own opinions that come from their own culture, but they attempt to better relate to those of other cultures and figure out the “why” behind the rituals, beliefs, and values of others. They believe that the ways people behave and perceive others is relative to their culture and cannot be understood without taking their culture into account. Cultural relativism is against ethnocentrism
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