Francisco III Sulita
English 27 AGA
Title:
The Problem of Cultural Relativism
Thesis:
There exists actual objective truths in morality and the belief that different cultures create different truths is wrong.
Introduction
Most people believe that right and wrong is relative to culture and beliefs. However, this would then assume that there can be no objective truths about right and wrong since culture and beliefs differ. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture. What the researcher would like to present is that there are indeed actual objective truths in morality and differences in culture cannot determine right and wrong. First, the researcher would give a historical background on how this problem
…show more content…
(Rachels, 1986) Both of these cultures have different ways to honor their dead. People cannot say that one or both of these cultures are wrong or that one or both of them are right. According to James Rachels, in his essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. However, another example would be that of the Eskimos. They [Eskimos], on the other hand, have less regard for human life and infanticide, for example, was common. (Rachels, 1986) The culture of the Eskimos has little regard for human life and infanticide or the deliberate killing of children a year after birth is common. Are we to say that since this practice is correct within the Eskimos since it is in their culture?
According to James Rachels, in his essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", if people assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all times, they are merely naive. Is this being naive? Is it right to say that the deliberate disregard for human life is right just because it is within their culture?
Thesis
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
Beckwith described many situations that would have us believe that certain aspects of other cultures have radically different moral values. The most predominant example he uses from philosopher James Rachels, agreeing with his claim he used over Eskimo culture and infanticide. In the Eskimo culture, it is a social and moral norm to kill a child to ensure the family’s survival. When looking at it from an ethnocentric view, many see that as morally wrong, but what Beckwith argues is that if we dig deeper and gain more knowledge of particular facts on these cultures that differences in cultures may not be too far off from our own. So from a morally objective standpoint, Beckwith believes that disagreements are overrated due to the lack of factual information and biases over issues.
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.
Cultural Relativism states that there is no objective right or wrong. Right or wrong are defined by your society’s moral code. I will provide reasons why we should not be cultural relativists. My reasons include; how it affects philosophy, the Cultural Differences Argument, examples of why it doesn’t work and societal needs.
Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective. Perhaps, the most important part of culture is its ethical aspect.
The Nacirema article can be applied to both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. There are obvious differences between the Nacirema culture and our culture. The Nacirema performed a mouth-rite ritual because they had a horror and fascination with the mouth, in this ritual they would place hog hairs in the mouth along with magical powders. Ethnocentric individuals would judge this ritual because it seems bizarre to them as it is not part of their culture. Individuals who believed in cultural relativism would view he ritual of the mouth as a standard of its the Nacirema culture, and that this ritual is performed because of their belief that a strong relationship exists between oral and moral characteristics.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
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
For example: So euthanasia is right for person A if he approves of it, but wrong for person B if she disapproves of it, and the same would go for cultures with similarly diverging views on the subject (13). Cultural relativism seems to many to be a much more plausible doctrine. To many people this is true; supported as it is by a convincing argument and the common conviction that is admirably consistent with social tolerance and understanding in a pluralistic world (Vaughn 15).
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.
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.