Morality vs. Culture

383 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Cultural relativism

Is morality Relative to culture?
This argument’s foundation is the basic question on whether morality is relative to culture, or owns own desires.
The pros of this argument are that we get to establish whether or not morality is a true sense of justice. As Melville J. Herskovitz indicates who is in favor of the cultural relativism notion, “Morality is a diverse unique variation of codes and ethics threat arises from culture to culture, belief to belief.” He argues that we cannot judge society based on its laws, and that we have to right to declare them inhumane.
The pro’s of his argument supporting cultural relativism are that we as a superior society in the United States need to respect the laws and traditions as what is deemed acceptable in other third world nations. After all he eluded, it was by force that Europeans imposed themselves upon African cultures. This serves as the basis for his argument. That we are in no right to judge simply because we live a different lifestyle and fear change.
His opposition, Louis P. Pojman makes a great counter attack. He agrees with Herskovitz in that social morality does indeed differ from culture to culture, but that does not make them necessarily right. He continues his argument by accentuating that if conventional relativism is accepted, then racism genocide of unpopular minorities, oppression of the poor, slavery, and even the advocacy of war for its own sake are as equally moral as their opposites. I believe this is where Pojman solidifies his argument. “Conventionalist relativism seems to reduce to subjectivism. And subjectivism leads, as we have seen, to the demise of morality altogether (Pojman).” I cannot pinpoint a con on
Pojman’s argrument because he acknowledges the importance of ethical diversity, and he strongly recommends that we scrutinize the cultural relativism argument to find the many loopholes that the naked eye can’t see.

Show More
Related

  • Cultural Relativism: An Impediment to Critical Morality

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Professor Beckwith

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout his essay, Professor Beckwith critiques the arguments primarily used to support moral relativism from cultural and individual differences. Beckwith states that there are four main problems with moral relativism: relativism does not follow from disagreement, disagreement counts against moral relativism, disagreement is overrated, and absurd consequences follow from moral relativism.

    Read More

  • Cultural Competence and Informed Consent in Health Care: Confronting a Fetal Abnormality

    1708 Words  | 4 Pages

    Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.

    Read More

  • The Debate Between Ruth Benedict And James Rachels

    1002 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • James Rachel's The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism

    818 Words  | 2 Pages

    Point six states “It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practice of other culture “ (Rachels,1986) My issue with this point is that it attempts to conclude that because Relativists don’t believe that their moral code is not superior to another cultures code that they cannot pass judgement or speak freely about other cultures, portraying Relativism as close-minded in the process. Essentially, the point that Rachel’s presents is suggesting that because cultural relativism does not acknowledge universal truths, then there is no way to pass judgement on say the Holocaust for example. This point argues that there is no process to determine whether the moral truths of Nazi Germany were right or wrong and that they are just cultural norms. But, always and at all times we are influenced by ideology that constitutes our own cultural norms. So, just by sheer opposition to our cultural norms, we can pass judgement on its radical difference. Thus, tolerance doesn’t mark cultural relativism, but actually the radical acknowledgement of cultural difference. (Try to connect thoughts to what you were saying about free speech as well how it stifles

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Moral Relativism

    1083 Words  | 3 Pages

    Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.

    Read More

  • Patrick Devlin's Legal Moralism

    1272 Words  | 3 Pages

    The relationship between morality and law has always been a subject of contention in jurisprudence. Consequently, many legal theories have attempted to define the appropriate limit and scope of morality’s influence on the law. Legal moralism, as proposed by Patrick Devlin, is the belief that society has “the right to pass judgement at all on matters of morals” (375), as well as “the right to use the weapon of the law to enforce it” (376). In this essay, I argue that Devlin’s legal moralism is unacceptable on the basis of committing cultural relativism, and that its application is problematic due to its inconsistent, arbitrary and biased nature. This essay will: 1) explain Devlin’s reasoning for legal moralism; 2) object to Devlin’s legal moralism with consideration to Devlin’s possible response.

    Read More

  • Moral Morality

    1847 Words  | 4 Pages

    Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United

    Read More

  • Lewis Vaughn's Definition Of Ethics And Morality

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    To his credit, Vaughn acknowledges that “diversity of moral judgements among cultures is a reality” (15). He also rightly states that just because such diversity exists does not mean that there is no objective moral truth. I can also find no issue with Vaughn’s assertion that such disagreements “may simply indicate that there is an objective fact of the matter that someone (or everyone) is wrong about” (15). However, neither does it logically follow that there is an objective moral truth – I will return to this issue in a moment. Vaughn then goes on make a similar argument against cultural relativism as he did subjective relativism, “if a culture genuinely approves of an action, then there can be no question about the action’s moral rightness” (16). As with his assertion that a murder’s moral acceptance of his crime implies its moral rightness, this claim confuses cultural relativism’s larger point, which is that morality is an agreed upon cultural convention, not an objective law like those governing like gravity or evolution. Outside cultures would not be wrong to question another culture’s moral rightness. They would simply be doing so according to their own moral standard instead of some objective one. Vaughn then goes onto say “cultural relativism implies there cannot be any such thing as moral progress” (16). The question arises, why are we assuming that there must be moral progress? His following argument is that social reformers cannot exist in cultural relativism. This claim arises from an overly narrow definition of a culture. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. may have been wrong according to the conservative white culture of his time, he was right according to the African American culture of his time. Cultural relativism does not deny that cultural trends can shift over time, so the modern prevalence of his morality does not undermine the theory. Cultural relativism

    Read More

  • Morality is Relative

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Differences Of Cultural Relativism: Personality, And Morality

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Hunting Deer's Analysis

    582 Words  | 2 Pages

    Gensler’s first opposition to cultural relativism is that “cultural relativism forces us to conform to society’s norms-or else we contradict ourselves” (Gensler, 1998). If good and any was socially accepted or was the same, then we would never contradict our society or question its worth. Inside cultural relativism, the minority view is automatically wrong, and good is determined by the majority viewpoint. Farther, if society says homicide is socially accepted, then that would mean homicide is good, since according to cultural relativism, what is socially accepted is good. For cultural relativism to be true, you must say and accept that crime is good, or simply reject cultural relativism. Gensler and so criticizes that cultural relativism is ignorant of the reality that everyone belongs to many overlapping subcultures, which frequently feature conflicting values and accepted norms. Cultural relativism fails to address these opposed norms between these societies and subcultures to which we lie in. If neither culture is fallacious, we cannot pick up from our mistakes and progress in order to “correct errors in our own norms” (Gensler, 1998). Gensler then claims that cultural relativism does not lay out with success against non-subjective truths for several

    Read More

  • Essay On The Challenges Of Cultural Relativism

    1459 Words  | 3 Pages

    The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge

    Read More

  • Moral Relativism

    1958 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Morality vs. Culture

Open Document