The moral action guide, Cultural Relativism, states that from an outsider’s perspective, a person cannot judge whether an action, society, or a culture is moral or amoral. Cultural Relativism argues since each society or culture has its own ideas on morality, it is not possible for an outsider to judge whether their actions or society ideals are moral or not, because what each person or culture perceives as moral is relative to where they are from. Immanuel Kant on the hand argues in his paper, “The Good Will and Categorical Imperative,” the moral action guide of Deontology. Deontology claims that there are universal rules which all rational beings are held to and that morality is derived from the duty to these universal rules. Deontology’s …show more content…
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 …show more content…
One of the most touched-on flaws is its inflexibility because of its dogmatic adherence to universal laws. Suppose a murderer came to your front door and is looking for your best friend who is hiding in your house. Do you lie to the murderer to save your friend or do you tell the truth and reveal where your friend is? A Deontologist according to Kant would be obligated to tell the truth. Kant argues that telling the truth is a universal rule and if everyone were to lie, society would break down. However, is telling the truth the real moral action to take here? The consequences are dire as your friend will die if you tell the truth, but Deontology does not care about consequences as long as the means are “moral.” (Kant 108) Deontology’s inflexibility when it comes to consequences and duty to universal laws is a major flaw within the theory. Even if we cannot predict all consequences from an action, we can still see some value within them. In this case with the murderer, most people would choose to break the “universal law” and lie because of the extreme consequences. Also, the fact that a universal law, according to Kant, is broken implies that Kant’s categorical imperative is flawed. The categorical imperative is too unaccommodating when it comes to extreme situations and is contradictory to Deontology’s take on consequences. Going back to the
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
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
...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals. From that opinion, one may assert that morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made.
Kantian Deontology is a theory of ethics written by Immanuel Kant. He argues that to be acting in a morally correct way, one must be acting from duty. He also argues that it isn’t the outcomes of the action that makes the actions right or wrong, rather it is the reason that the person had carried out the action. These two arguments rely on the categorical imperative. The first is the Formula of Universal Law (FUL). Kant describes it as, “I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law” (Kant). In another words, if you universalize a maxim (a principle of intention), i...
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex
Immanuel Kant has a deontological view of ethics. He writes on duty-based ethics, meaning you must act from duty to make an act a moral action. Acting simply in accordance with duty does not make an act a moral action. His sense of duty comes from the three formulas for the Categorical
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.
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
Viewed from this perspective, the argument for cultural relativism is not valid. For example, the premise could be female circumcision is allowed and moral in Nigeria. Female circumcision is prohibited and immoral in the U.S. Therefore, the conclusion, would be that female circumcision is neither moral nor immoral, objectively. Simply stating, there are some beliefs that are viewed as moral by one culture and immoral by another culture does not prove whether it is objectively right or wrong.
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.
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
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
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.
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.