Cultural and ethical relativism can often be thought to share the exact same beliefs and be one and the same, but they actually have differences. As taught in lecture, Cultural relativism is when people try and understand and become involved with other cultures that are not their own and do not use their own cultures as the norm. People are free to still have their own opinions that come from their own culture, but they attempt to better relate to those of other cultures and figure out the “why” behind the rituals, beliefs, and values of others. They believe that the ways people behave and perceive others is relative to their culture and cannot be understood without taking their culture into account. Cultural relativism is against ethnocentrism …show more content…
The beliefs in morality that cultures hold, although different from others, are just as equal in ethics as any other culture. Ethical relativists realize that what one culture considers as normal may be thought of as morally wrong by another because ethical matters are relative to the individual and culture. Cultural relativists have more of an open option of thinking their own opinion through their own cultural beliefs without supporting nor forcing cultural imperialism. They want to learn about other cultures and their ways of life, but they can hold an opinion about morality and ethics that come from being human and having human rights without imposing their beliefs on others. Cultural relativists accept diversity and strive to study it while ethical relativists do not think that there is a universal right or wrong and see ethics as relative. Culture relativists may criticize ethical relativists because they are not able to be critical of what they believe is evil, as commented on in lecture. Ethical relativists believe that we should tolerate other cultures that may be perceived as inhuman and evil because these practices are relative. As said in lecture, to be a cultural relativist without being an ethical relativist would be by being aware and interested in learning about the various …show more content…
However, as brought up in lecture, he or she would try and engage the topic and learn from the community about why honor killings are important to them and how it is incorporated into their lives as well as the repercussions of not following this tradition. Cultural relativists want to understand other cultures and do not view their own culture as the most important nor as the standard that other cultures should be compared to. On the other hand, lectures point to how an ethical relativist would not consider whether the practice of honor killings is right or wrong and strive to be tolerant of all people and practices. Ethical relativists could go either way with wanting to learn about the practice or not being interested in it. They believe that they are not the ones to judge other cultures about what is ethical because morals are learned from people’s societies and are relative. Those who believe in ethical relativism do not view ethics as a universal standard, so they do not form their own opinions about what is immoral or unethical and instead remain neutral to the subject. Cultural and ethical relativists are similar in the fact that they both consider actions of a culture to be due to their society and realize that cultural practices have a reasoning behind
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
Relativist ethics could be seen as fair or unfair. They provide individuality which allows people such as Hitler to commit outrageous acts and be justified for them, which is unfair. It is not right to justify murder in any way or stop people from having their own morality because of cultural approval. An example of this would be female genital mutilation (FGM) which is seen as a positive action in some Asian countries because of cultural acceptance. But from Western society is seen as otherwise. Another example of this would be Abortion, which is strongly discouraged by the Islamic faith, and seen as normal act that doesn’t necessarily need justification for. Relativist ethics would allow it
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
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
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
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.
While ethical relativism states that a person must respect another person’s culture and behaviors according to the behavior and customs that are considered moral pertaining to that society when the action happens in that society. Ethical absolutism declares that there are certain actions that everyone in any society should consider unethical. Regardless of the context of certain action or the society where it is happens, certain actions remain as equally immoral if the action occurs in America or if the action occurs in a small island in the Pacific Ocean according to ethical absolutism. Ethical absolutism is proclaiming that there is a universal ethical code which involves everyone regardless of the culture or society. Ethical relativism makes an attempt to understand the behaviors in other cultures or societies without judging the action by the standards of an incompatible society where the action does not happen. Ethical absolutism does not undertake the same strategy as ethical relativism, there is no room for understanding behaviors in other cultures because once it is seen as wrong then it will always be wrong no matter the explanation behind the
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
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,
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. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
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.
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. 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. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
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.