In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism.
Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes, and nothing more” (Rachels 698). Vaughn defines cultural relativism as “the view that right actions are those sanctioned by one’s culture” (13). Vaughn and Rachels agree with moral objectivism and are against ethical relativism. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism are related because ethical relativism regarding cultures is called cultural relativism, and ethical and cultural relativism involve a culture deciding morals and between what is right and what is wrong. Moral objectivism is the idea that at least some moral standards are objective, there are moral norms or principles that are valid or true for everyone (13). It is related to relativism because they both are believing in what they think is morally right and what is morally wrong, and moral objectivism believes there are universal moral principles and relativism believes there are no valid universal principles.
Ethical relativism is the view that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cu...
... middle of paper ...
...tures are different and believe different morals, so believing in cultural relativism is merely amiss. Cultural relativism states that cultures decide between right and wrong, but some people in those cultures could feel differently of what their culture believes in; therefore, cultural relativism could never be right. Every culture has similar morals. For example, everyone wants what is good for their people and will do anything and everything to protect them. Moral objectivism makes more sense to agree with and has little to no flaws in my opinion. I would want to believe in what I believe is right instead of a culture deciding my morals for me. Overall, Vaughn and Rachels give great evidence and examples to support their theory of objectivism. Therefore, moral objectivism is the right choice to believe in and is the most satisfactory moral theory.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- ... What is right for one society could be unmoral for another society; the moral code for one society establishes what is right for only that society, we cannot assume that the moral code upholds to every society. Since, every society has different moral codes, then we should be open-minded instead of ignorant of other codes, and we should not automatically assume that our moral code is better than someone else’s this proves ignorance that we are trying to shy away from. However, since there is no universal truth in ethics, how can we determine if an action is right or wrong.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Human, Culture]
872 words (2.5 pages)
- The Challenge of Cultural Relativism Argument The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.... [tags: Culture, United States, Anthropology]
993 words (2.8 pages)
- In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act.... [tags: Morality, Cultural relativism, Culture, Ethics]
900 words (2.6 pages)
- ... “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways” (Sumner, 1960). Sunmer is explaining that since morality comes from folkways (traditions) relative to the culture from where they occur, morality is relative to culture. Opponents of Cultural Relativism argue that if Cultural Relativism is true, a society loses its abilities to intervene in external activities.... [tags: Morality, Cultural relativism, Culture]
1275 words (3.6 pages)
- Consequentialism is a moral theory which is founded on the premise that an action is morally right if the outcomes of such actions maximize the good and minimize the bad. In contrast, Non-consequentialism is derived from the premise that some actions are inherently right or wrong. As these theories can derive either identical or varied conclusions in morally ambiguous situations, the conclusions in themselves, while important, can not be considered evidence for the theory’s value. Hence, as we can only judge a theories value by its premise, I will argue that consequentialism is derived from a sound premise, while non-consequentialism is based on an unfounded assertion.... [tags: morality, ethics, consequentialism]
1578 words (4.5 pages)
- Weigh Prinz’s argument for moral relativism against the anti-relativist arguments put by James Rachel in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” Explain both philosophers cases. Which argument is stronger in your view and why. Defend your answer. From a young age, people question whether they are morally right about things all around them. Have our morals been taught to us from a young age. Do they truly exist are are they a norm imposed to people by society. Does morality really exist or is it just a creation of our imagination.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Cultural relativism]
1470 words (4.2 pages)
- ... In particular, it conflicts with our idea of rights, and of honor. If we go to the extreme, it seems that the argument above could make involuntary euthanasia right. Since if the amount of happiness is increased enough by terminating a patient, even if this patient does not want to die. And obviously this is an unacceptable thing to do in our society. In my eyes where the argument fails is in the similarity which Rachels tries to compare humans to animals. When it comes to animals, as far as we can determine, they do not have the ability to think for themselves in the way that we understand “thinking” to mean.... [tags: Morality, Utilitarianism, Ethics, Religion]
703 words (2 pages)
- “Questioning My Beliefs” As a Christian raised in a Southern Baptist church, I have always been taught and believed without questioning, that the soul is the part of me that makes me who I am. It is my personality, my thoughts and emotions, and my identity. Without my soul, I would be lifeless, like a light bulb without electricity. At death, according to my beliefs, the soul survives, separates from the body, and proceeds to its destination--heaven or hell. I have questioned this pre-held belief after reading James Rachels argument against the immortal soul.... [tags: Soul, Life, Immortality, God]
1110 words (3.2 pages)
- 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.... [tags: values, ethics, religion]
957 words (2.7 pages)
- ... He goes on to say that the actions of a doctor who lets a patient die and the actions of a doctor who gives a patient a lethal injection, are morally equal, as the method is not what is important (Timmons, 2007, p.348). Rachels then concludes that active euthanasia is not morally worse than passive euthanasia (Timmons, 2007, p.349). A common argument against the belief that the two are not morally different states that in passive euthanasia the doctor does not play a role in the death of the patient as the patient ultimately dies of the terminal illness that they have (Timmons, 2007, p.349).... [tags: Death, Euthanasia, Morality, Homicide]
1097 words (3.1 pages)