Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism and Cognitive Subjectivism In this essay, I will first address the view of cultural relativism. I will discuss the two problems cultural relativism has: it does not allow for moral progress; it does not allow for any universal moral codes. I will then discuss the view of cognitive subjectivism. Finally, I will discuss the two problems cognitive subjectivism has: it does not allow for meaningful moral disagreement; it seems to that everyone is morally infallible. Cultural relativists think it is the mainstream culture that defines morality, i.e., an individual person's beliefs and values should be accepted by others in terms of that individual's culture. Using Rachel's Ancient Greek and Callatians as an example, the Callatians

From a cultural relativist's point of view, there is no such thing as moral progress. In order to be considered as a progress, the new moral view must be better than the old one; but, in order for it to be better, there must a standard that is being used to compare. However, according to cultural relativism, there is none because even though our views change over time, they are never considered as better in cultural relativist's point view, they are just different. For example, in the 1800s, the American society allowed for slavery. According to cultural relativism, we can conclude that slavery is acceptable in the 1800s, i.e., slave owners are not morally wrong by owning slaves. But today, the American society no longer allows slavery. According to cultural relativism, slavery is morally wrong nowadays. Most people, including me will likely to say that our moral views are getting better. However, our views are not better; in fact they are just simply different for a cultural relativist's stand point. This does not seem right. It seems that a society's moral view can get better over time. The second problem cultural relativism faces is that it does not allow for any universal moral codes. The key for understanding cultural relativism is to know that different cultures have different moral codes, and morality is defined by mainstream culture. With this being said, there is no such thing

For there to be a meaningful disagreement, there must be contradictory views. When we analyze moral statements as a cognitive subjectivist, these statements become "I-statements". These "I-statements" are no longer contradictory. Consider the statement: "Health care is a moral right" as an example. First, meaningful moral disagreement requires a contradiction. In order to be a contradiction, the statement "A" and statement "Not A" cannot be both true. Thus, a contradiction to the original statement will be "Health care is not a moral right." Second, cognitive subjectivism has us analyze moral statements as "I-statements". Thus, these two statements become: "I approve of health care being a moral right"; and "I disapprove of health care being a moral right". These two "I-statements" eliminate the contradiction that is required by a meaningful moral disagreement. Therefore we can confidently conclude that cognitive subjectivism does not allow for meaningful moral