The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism By James Rachels

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

This is the third consequence Rachels says would follow if Cultural Relativism were true. Some social changes can be for the better while others are for the worst. However in Cultural Relativism, there is no objective standard by which we may judge between societies, even when the other society is an older version of our own. James Rachels gives the example of our culture coming to increase the rights for women and black people. Without an objective moral standard, these can only be seen as neutral changes or as clarifications of the already existing cultural standard. It is more plausible to regard these changes as genuine progressions inner society, progressions that get us closer to the objectively true standard of morality— which serves to show that Cultural Relativism should not be

He says, “…the standard that might most reasonably be used in thinking about excision: we may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it” (Rachels 11). This means that the moral worth of a practice depends on how it contributes to the society in which it is practiced. By this reasoning, if it promotes human flourishing then it is morally good and it it hinders human flourishing, then it is morally evil. It is an objective fact whether an act promotes or hinders human flourishing, so this may be used as a culturally neutral standard. James Rachels says, “it is a single standard that may be brought to bear in judging the practices of any culture” (Rachels 12). Therefore, it can be determined that a “presumption in favor of truthfulness” is and should be in place in any society (Rachels 9). Rachels then states that, “there are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because the rules are necessary for society to exist” (Rachels 9). This proves that Cultural Relativism is false because all cultures need these rules in some way or another and that goes against the beliefs of Cultural Relativism. In Cultural Relativism, there are no universally applicable moral rules or moral values. There is a difference between accepting the rule and whether it applies to you. All cultures sharing common values does not show that these values apply to