“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically …show more content…
160). This simply means not all societies believe the same thing is “right” or “wrong” because each society has the ability to have a different moral code. However, with this being said, cultures do have some common values and for society to exist with as much peace as possible, there are some moral rules that societies must have in common. Without some common moral codes, the world would be out of control and as a result, there would be many problems between people. With societies having a mix of shared and unshared cultural moral codes, it is safe to assume that most societies have mixes of good moral practices and bad moral …show more content…
Because cultural relativism means that there are moral rules that typically differ from society to society, I have to disagree with what James Rachels is saying throughout this article. The question I pondered upon while reading this article is, how does the universal truth work if each society has a different set of moral codes to follow. I believe there should be such a thing as a universal truth because there needs to be an overall societal order of how one is expected to act. An example in James Rachels article when the universal truth is proven to be invalid because of cultural relativism is when he was discussing infanticide. I had two questions I asked myself while reading this part of the article. The first question was, how is it okay for the Eskimos culture to murder a child under the age of one? The second question I had was, how is it okay to take the life of an innocent child, who has not been able to experience this world? It does not make sense, that in one culture, it is morally right to murder a child under the age of one and on the other hand another culture believes it is morally wrong. The Eskimos believed it was acceptable, whereas the Americans believe infanticide is completely wrong. The community needs to have one set of moral codes for the whole world. This is why I believe cultural relativism is incorrect and universal truths are the
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
Beckwith described many situations that would have us believe that certain aspects of other cultures have radically different moral values. The most predominant example he uses from philosopher James Rachels, agreeing with his claim he used over Eskimo culture and infanticide. In the Eskimo culture, it is a social and moral norm to kill a child to ensure the family’s survival. When looking at it from an ethnocentric view, many see that as morally wrong, but what Beckwith argues is that if we dig deeper and gain more knowledge of particular facts on these cultures that differences in cultures may not be too far off from our own. So from a morally objective standpoint, Beckwith believes that disagreements are overrated due to the lack of factual information and biases over issues.
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
...d, different cultures live completely separate lives and each society is not the same as the next. Different lifestyles would mean that there are different cultural views and norms depending what type of society you live in when building your moral standards. Furthermore I believe that there is a distinguishable line between right and wrong and a rational being need not the rules of society to help govern decisions, but it is necessary for society to have standards of morals and ethics so that one’s actions can ultimately be justifiable.
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.
In psychology, ethics are important because they set boundaries and control the way psychology is used by a set of laws. Ethic codes mainly protect clients from misuse of psychology. Ethics are important because they refrain the psychologist from lying to a patient. They also give protection to the public, clients, and psychologist. Overall, ethics are used to protect the psychologist and client from harm, as well as give control to the behavior in order to ensure safe and effective treatment. http://www.efpa.be/ethics.htm
The codification of deviance can vary widely between different cultures, a norm in one culture can be considered deviant in another. For example, the notion of cannibalism has been proved by anthropologists to be a spiritually divine form of ritualistic sacrifice in the ancient Aztec culture of Mexico. Yet in Western culture murder and the consumption of human flesh is considered highly revolting, dealt with by harsher consequences by law than most other deviant crimes. These differences are due to the way each individual society develops their own moral codes. These codes are often defined by cultural ideologies, adversity to other cultures and ritualistic practises which have become accepted, as well established patterns in the development of culture. Lloyd, M 2007 implies this by saying 'we are born into a pre existing (social) order the comes ready made with a large stock of norms and rules we must learn if we are to participate as c...
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Lets start by understanding that cultures are a melting pot of people’s beliefs, language, behaviors, values, material objects, and norms. Norms are written and non-written “expectations of behavior” that govern a certain location, place, or culture (26). These norms also vary from culture to culture meaning what is a norm in the U.S may not be a norm in India. For example, a norm in America would be tipping a waiter after a meal. Another would be acknowledging someone as you walk past him or her, typically done at work or in a public place. In all, norms are folkways, mores, taboos, and written laws that are an established standard of one’s behavior.
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.
Nisan, M. (1987). Moral norms and social conventions: A cross-cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 719-725.
Rachels says that “different cultures have different moral codes” and I believe that is true what might be okay in one culture could be absolutely immoral in another. His reference to what Daruis notice between the Greeks and the Callatians can show us that each culture has their own method of dealing with a situation. As well as the Eskimos who had multiple wife and use the method of infanticide. This being unheard of, immoral to the people of America but since the time of Herodotus they have notice “the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture.” I think this concept is right however, I haven’t actually seen a culture as different as my, I have seen some small differences and I know some culture have big differences to mine but I haven’t encounter them. I...
Implicit in the basic formulations for both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any another. 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.
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...
As society as a whole we are most often times given a set of rules to follow. These rules or laws act as a pathway to help us choose between right and wrong. If someone were to choose the wrong path, there can be severe consequences. In the United States it is common to see jail time when we go against the set moral code. In other countries we may see forced labor or find people put to death for their actions. Each society sets it’s own rules and moral standards. But there is much more to being a moral person than following the laws of a society. As defined by Alan Wolfe, moral freedom means “individuals should determine for themselves what it means to lead a good and virtuous life” (Wolfe, 2001). This means that even though we are given a