Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
Summary of cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism. What Is Cultural Relativism? Cultural relativism is “moral relativism regarding cultures; the view that right actions are …show more content…
Different cultures have different moral beliefs. 2. If different cultures have different moral beliefs, then there are no objective moral truths. 3. Therefore, there are no objective moral truths (O’Connor 6). Premise 1 contains many examples to back up its factuality. For instance, Muslim culture requires females, who reach puberty, to cover up practically everything from head to toe. It is deemed morally wrong for women to show their hair or skin to men for it is a means of seduction. However, in other cultures, causal wear is seen as normal and accepted without any men falling for a woman by the sight of her hair or skin. Therefore, the act of not covering one’s body is seen as right in one culture, and completely wrong in another. Premise 2 states that since there are different beliefs from one culture to the next, there cannot be one or more belief(s) that apply to everyone. There are countless different moral beliefs from culture to culture whether it be dining etiquette, or what side of the road one drives on, or how one should dress. As a result, the conclusion, from premises 1 and 2, that there are no objective moral truths is viewed as sound and valid. However, if viewed from a closer perspective, it can be seen that there is an inference with premise …show more content…
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. The idea of human evolution puts strong Christians and firm atheists at opposite grounds. Christians believe that God is the reason for mankind’s creation of changes, while atheists believe in the theory of evolution and gene pools. However, science does prove that evolution and genetics is a reason behind the changes throughout history of mankind, but there still lies reason to believe that God is the source for miracles and unexplainable diseases. As Vaughn wrote, “moral disagreements between cultures can arise not just because their basic moral principles clash, but because they have differing non-moral beliefs that put those principles in very different lights,”
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
Determining what is good and what is bad is almost impossible to do. Each individual person & culture both have a different opinion on that. Realistically, there is no one person who can determine if morals are in fact correct or wrong. This is the biggest and most argued flaw with the idea of cultural relativism. Some important facts about cultural relativism is that the idea that a person’s culture shapes their morals and beliefs has been studied for over a century. Bernard Williams is one of the most renowned researches into the topic of cultural relativity. One of the biggest examples of cultural relativism is the treatment of women in Middle Eastern countries, compared to the treatment of women in Western Countries. Another great example of this theory is that children in America are raised to believe that dogs are pets, while in other countries, such as China, dogs are considered a source of food. This theory is most debated through the religious world because religious sects believe that their set of morals is the only correct ones. culturally traditional things begin to shift and change in order to appease the world view of said culture. When you visit other country, keep in mind that there are varied cultures and tradition. Some of the traits or behavior that you are accustomed or familiar
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Since no one culture is the same as another culture, how can our ethical views be the same? They can’t. A Greek historian of the 5th century named Herodotus, advances this observation “when he observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks his own society’ customs are best. But no set of social customs, is really better or worse than any other” (Rachels, 2015). Herodotus also went on to say that, there is no such thing as what is really right or wrong apart from our social codes. Social codes are all that exist and are different from culture to culture, they are the rights and wrongs for that culture. “Each society develops standards that are used by people within it to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable behavior, and every judgment of right and wrong presupposes one or another of these standards. For example, if your society believes in arranged marriage, then arrange marriage is right for “your society”; and if that practice is wrong within my society than the arrange marriage practice is wrong for my society. Another argument that supports the ethical relativism can be read by a Scottish philosopher Davis Hume. David
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
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
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.
Moral practices are different in many cultures. There are cultural practices that you would expect to be immoral all over the world, but it is not. For example, I do not understand how anyone would feel it is normal to eat love ones who have died. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. It is normal for others to burn the dead. In my culture, we bury the dead. Because I feel it is inhuman for someone to eat their loves after they have died does not give me the right to tell them they are wrong and I am right. This is the means behind ethical relativism. T...
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.
It is flawed in the sense that it underestimates similarities and overestimates differences between cultures that prove that there is a universal standard for ethics among all human beings when we understand context and rules of morality that are consistent through all cultures. We are all able to judge each other’s cultures and our own cultures because that is how moral progress is accomplished. If there is moral progress and a universal standard of ethics than cultural relativism cannot
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.
Norms are by definition general society guidelines and expectations of appropriate behavioral conduct in a particular environment or society. These guidelines could be formal and written such as laws that prohibit stealing or they could be implicit such as behavioral conduct or dress code. Every society has its own way of endorsing and enforcing certain norms and standards of proper behavior while renouncing and sanctioning improper behavior. In general, norms are of a significant importance because they guide our behavior and maintain order in society by providing conformity. Furthermore, norms render behavior predictable rather than random, thus allowing us to predict and understand other people’s actions and behaviors in different situations. On the other hand, divergence from norms is termed “deviance” and can lead to chaos and instability. It is noteworthy to mention, that the culture background and context play an important role as each culture processes its own norms, values, standards and expectations. For instance, in certain cultures shaking hands between opposite sexes is inappropriate, and this is the case in Yemen. Thus our perception of norms in different culture is critical: either we choose to understand an individual’s behavior according to his own culture context and set of norms (cultural relativity) or we choose to understand an individual’s behavior according to our own culture which we believe to be more superior (ethnocentrism). An example of ethnocentrism where norms and values of a certain culture have been imposed on another is the banning of the veil worn by muslim women in France. In contrast, cultural relativism appears in Lebanon where muslim women are perceived in terms of their own culture and are a...
Many theories attempt to explain ethical standards and how certain cultures perceive these standards or practices. When explaining certain ethical standards Cultural Relativism is an failed illogical theory for many reasons. Cultural Relativism is a theory that attempts to explain an idea that no culture is superior to any other culture and that all people’s perspectives are biased by their own cultural background. Generally, it is the opinion that all cultures are of equal value and equality to each other, therefore, there is no one culture is inferior to any other.