Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticism of cultural relativism
Criticism of cultural relativism
“Combating Female Genital Mutilation: An agenda for the Decade.” research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criticism of cultural relativism
Cultural Relativism states that there is no objective right or wrong. Right or wrong are defined by your society’s moral code. I will provide reasons why we should not be cultural relativists. My reasons include; how it affects philosophy, the Cultural Differences Argument, examples of why it doesn’t work and societal needs. James Rachels supplies six claims that have been made by cultural relativists. 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. 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. 3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code …show more content…
An example of this argument is that, in parts of Africa female circumcision (or female genital mutilation) is a regular practice. In most “western” societies it is considered abhorrent. To a cultural relativist, female circumcision is neither objectively right nor wrong, it is just a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture. This argument states that since different groups of people disagree about something, there is no right or wrong-it just depends on where you are from. The problem with this argument is that it draws a substantial conclusion from people’s opinions. The simple fact of the matter is that people’s opinions may lead to a wrong conclusion. One or both groups of people might be wrong in their beliefs. Since the premises of both African and western cultural beliefs on this issue can both be true while the conclusion can be false, the cultural differences argument is invalid and therefore also unsound. Although this argument is invalid it does not disprove cultural relativism, however it does mean that the argument cannot be used to prove cultural …show more content…
An example of where this goes wrong is the holocaust. During the holocaust approximately six million Jewish people were killed in concentration camps and many more were forced from their homes and communities. The cultural relativist would say these actions were neither right nor wrong, merely a difference in two society’s moral codes. Another example is the recent attack in Paris. The terrorist group ISIS launched attacks in the city of Paris, killing 129 people and injuring many more. Many countries such as Germany, the US, Australia and Spain have spoken out against these attacks. According to cultural relativism, this action was neither right nor wrong because that’s what is considered morally right in that group. In fact according to the cultural relativist, the people who spoke out against these attacks are in the wrong because “It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples” (James Rachels, The Elements Of Philosophy pg.
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
(Intro sentence) How could one possibly defend a position like this? How could one defend moral relativism and in turn defend some of the most infamous and vile creatures that mankind’s ever produced? My goal is not to wholeheartedly defend Cultural Relativism but to give the reader an opportunity to create their own conclusion on it by presenting them with the adequate tools to analyze it. Before continuing, it is necessary I define Cultural Realism and Relativism. Cultural Realism is the stance that moral claims must be objectively true or objectively false, it allows no room for interpretation only concrete conclusions. If there is no room for interpretation, what person or entity was granted the ability to decide what is morally true or
Cultural relativism is a theory, which entails what a culture, believes is what is correct for that particular culture, each culture has different views on moral issues. For example, abortion is permissible by American culture and is tolerated by the majority of the culture. While, Catholic culture is against abortion, and is not tolerated by those who belong to the culture. Cultural relativism is a theory a lot of individuals obey when it comes to making moral decisions. What their culture believes is instilled over generations, and frequently has an enormous influence since their families with those cultural beliefs have raised them. With these beliefs, certain cultures have different answers for different moral dilemmas and at times, it is difficult to decide on a specific moral issue because the individual may belong to multiple
In “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," James Rachels criticizes the basis of Cultural Relativism in the form of modus tollens, to deny by denying, arguments to prove that Cultural Relativism is improbable. This paper will argue that Rachels provided sufficient evidence during his criticism of Cultural Relativism. His argument is successful because he provides three logical consequences that would follow if Cultural Relativism were true, he explains the establishment of the existence of an objective standard, and he criticizes the Cultural Differences Argument. James Rachels says that if Cultural Relativism was plausible, our culture could no longer say that the customs of other cultures are morally inferior to our own, right and wrong actions
At first glance both Cultural Relativism and Deontology offer two appealing but different moral action guides. Cultural Relativism’s maxim of an outsider’s inability to judge is appealing and sometimes possibly correct. In The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, Rachels’ and Rachels’ critique of Cultural Relativism, an example involving Eskimos is used to display a situation where morality can be relative. The Eskimos practiced infanticide which is considered amoral to most western cultures and would bring about negative judgments on their culture. However the Eskimos did not commit infanticide because of their lack morality, but because it was necessary to their survival. (Rachels Rachels 21) In this case Cultural Relativism seems to have a case for itself, however most cases are not so clear cut as Relativism likes it to be. In order to expose this weakness, Rachels and Rachels point out female genital mutilation in Togo. In Togo it is common practice to excise a female’s genitals so she can stay more “faithful” to their spouse. A Relativist would say that if it is generally accepted within the society, then
If someone in a society does something wrong in their culture that their culture disagree with, then it’s wrong just like if they do something right and vice versa. Their culture defines what is right and what is wrong. Other societies have no say so in examples such as Hitler and Nazism or females being circumcised in Africa. Even if someone in that culture disagrees with it, it would not matter because these things are justified within their culture. This is definitely where I agree it is a problem. There is no written rule that cultures have to obey their moral code and if they don’t they are not moral. In cultural relativism it is okay to disagree with your culture. That is a reason why I don’t believe that cultural relativism is relevant. There are a lot of disagreements within a culture which makes cultural relativism non-existent. An objection that can be raised against this though is that cultures have no choice but to obey their moral codes in order to survive. Morality is different in every society and that this behavior is just “socially approved habits.” Its premises will be something like this: (1) Different cultures have different moral beliefs and (2) these differences show that there are no universally correct moral standards therefore, (3) there are no universally correct moral standards but only culturally relative ones (
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.
I can’t fathom how cultural relativism is able to bypass logic and remain popular today. We know that some things are wrong. For example, murdering innocent people. Nonetheless, cultural relativists still state that some things are “mostly” wrong or “mostly” right because they believe that a societies beliefs on what is morally right or wrong are neither incorrect or correct. How does that even make sense? How would we know today what is right and wrong if we didn’t criticize not only our own but other societies? For example, Nazis
Cultural relativism theorizes that the best way for different societies to function together at peace is for them to recognize that each culture must be allowed its own system of beliefs. One individual may believe that his or her culture’s belief system is the one true way. Is there any way to absolutely prove that that person’s morals are not correct? Not in the cultural relativist view. Cultural relativism states that no man from a different background can justifiably say that another society’s beliefs are wrong; that other society may believe that his ideas are wrong. The only way to resolve the matter peaceably, as cultural relativism acknowledges, is for societies to recognize their differences without attempting to force their beliefs upon one another; neither will they try to prove each other wrong. They must simply peacefully coexist without interference generated by belief systems.
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.
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
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.
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.
... One example would be the active practice of anti-Semitism directed at the destruction of Jewish peoples. Could such a practice ever be construed as an opinion or even a routine cultural custom? By any stretch, it would be hard to imagine anything less than universal condemnation of killing for no other reason than genocide. This objection is strong, perhaps opening an avenue of attack toward Cultural Relativism on the basis of some type of universal morality.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.