Hence, we should reject cultural relativism’s existence. First, I show that cultural relativism does not promote tolerance, but on the contrary, they promote intolerance. Then, I explain the biggest problem cultural relativism face: moral infallibility. Moral infallibility makes us unable to criticize another culture. In addition, every change a culture has had was a merely coincidence.
Any individual who attempts to formulate an objective set of values will always fail, because the prism through which they analyze the world will inevitably be marred by their own experiences and perspectives. Therefore, moral standards are actually cultural standards, and nothing more. Cultural Relativism posits that there are no universal ethical truths, only various cultural codes. Cultural relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. (489) One proposition of this theory states that, “it is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples.
To many that’s the key understanding to morality, However in ethics some say it is in actuality a myth. The difference between right or wrong is strictly a matter of human opinion not culture. There are many probable reasons why most people view moral decisions objectively. For Example, When talking about cultural differences there are many fundamental ideas such as “Different cultures have different moral codes“. Many also argue that there is no objective “Truth” in morality, right and wrong are only matters of an opinion which is different from culture to culture().
Society builds a culture around us which conditions it to be subjective. People should not condone the philosophy of moral relativism because it allows people to freely interpret the meaning of right and wrong, makes people lose self-control,
Is it all relative? Moral relativism is a widespread theory that can be used to explain the differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Ruth Benedict describes relative morality as a concept based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures. He argues that many cultures are so contrasting when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle that they cannot be unified under one universal moral code that governs all of humanity. Conversely however, James Rachels, author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, does not subscribe to the theory of moral relativism.
Moral Theory and Personal Relationships In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments.
In turn, this criticism means that because our cultures are incredibly complex relativism attempts to explain and justify our moral differences by saying they are a result of our different cultures and history. Therefore the differences between moralities of cultures are blamed on their cultural and historical differences leading us to be accepting of these differences and encouraging coexistence. Although, the complexity of cultures is not a justification for being accepting of cultures. Relativism deems it immoral to condemn a culture 's actions and to be intolerant; however, if a culture were to arise that was clearly morally intolerant we should stand against it. When we apply relativism we are focusing on agreement and tolerance between cultures; however, not all cultures should be tolerated.
It is widely accepted that different cultures, whether that be as simply as regional or global, have different ways of viewing life. While one culture may find one thing to be socially acceptable another may find the same to be completely taboo. To begin this argument I would like to cite the works of Richmond Campbell in “Moral Epistemology”(Campbell 2003.) In this he states that “Moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social group in which moral sensibility is formed with the result that no moral truths are known to hold universally.” While it may be fair to judge someone of your own culture off of your moral intuition, the statement above shows that you cannot equally transfer this moral judgment to another culture. Campbell uses the argument of a woman wearing a veil over her face.
The society in Brave New World is a critical and objective analysis of how the world would function in conditions that limit freedom for people within it. It exaggerates and criticizes how the danger of too much conditioning fosters stereotypes and segregation among groups. Through Brave New World, Aldous Huxley argued that dividing and grouping humans is an artificial aspect of human societies and is detrimental to humanity because it leads to lack of creativity, perpetuates otherization and limits opportunities to express free will. Grouping can lead to unoriginal societies where creativity is not spread because the sharing of ideas cannot happen, since through the communities within it are not intersectional. After the riot that John caused,
She argues that there is lack of diversity in positions of influence as well as the work force due to the “unconscious bias”. She believes this bias to be “the filters in which we see the world around us” (citation). The circumstance of our birth is something that cannot be changed or controlled yet, it still has the ability to dictate the futures of men and women of different cultures. In order to obstruct the effects of this “unconscious bias”, it needs to be acknowledged and identified. In comparison, Bennet believes the subject of cultural diversity is ignored and treated as a threat rather than an asset.