Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticism of cultural relativism
Criticism of cultural relativism
4 Problems with cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criticism of cultural relativism
The definition of ethical subjectivism is basing our moral opinions on feelings. Everyone has their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions. When you use these opinions and feelings to choose values on moral and ethical views on issues there are no facts and no individual is right when using them. This is because opinion is not fact, everyone feels differently about everything and that’s all there is to it. Based on the definition on subjectivism, it is known to be flawed. We know that subjectivism is moral opinion based on feelings it is impossible to argue against. No one can challenge your views or beliefs when it is simply an opinion it cannot be wrong. If subjectivism was always the way our society functioned through the years we could never …show more content…
The next arguments are to show how cultural relativism is flawed. If you are a cultural relativist it is impossible to criticize the standards of another culture. You cannot have another view besides accepting that cultures views etc. If you are a true cultural relativist hearing about tribes in Africa that strongly believe that genital mutilation on young girls is morally right, you must accept it entirely. Even if your own culture does not accept it and you struggle to accept it you must. You cannot pick and choose which cultures to accept and which you do not. The second argument is if you are cultural relativist you cannot say if former practices of your own society are better or worse than another society’s. The example of this argument comes from James Rachels. There are two different cultures the Greeks and the Callations, both celebrate the dead in two very different manors. The Greeks believe in cremating the body of the dead fathers, and the Callatians believe that eating the bodies of the dead fathers. When the Greeks were asked what they thought of eating the bodies of their dead they were shocked and rejected the idea entirely. Then as the Callatians discovered what the Greeks did by cremating the dead the Callatians were disgusted (Rachels). When each group found out about the other they were shocked and repulsed by the customs that they had and completely rejected them. The Greeks and Callatians are not cultural relativists, based on their reaction to each other’s
It almost appears that the cultural relativist denies a person’s ability to empathize with others, on top of ignoring the fact that people have been migrating and assimilating within different cultures since people existed. People seem to posses a great ability to understand one another. It seems odd to assume that what people have been doing for centuries would suddenly be lost to them. As I stated earlier, people largely have the same values, the differences appear in the expression of these values. I believe that these similar values allow people to understand other cultures even without being from within
(Intro sentence) How could one possibly defend a position like this? How could one defend moral relativism and in turn defend some of the most infamous and vile creatures that mankind’s ever produced? My goal is not to wholeheartedly defend Cultural Relativism but to give the reader an opportunity to create their own conclusion on it by presenting them with the adequate tools to analyze it. Before continuing, it is necessary I define Cultural Realism and Relativism. Cultural Realism is the stance that moral claims must be objectively true or objectively false, it allows no room for interpretation only concrete conclusions. If there is no room for interpretation, what person or entity was granted the ability to decide what is morally true or
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
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.
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.
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and it
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.
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.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
Moral practices are different in many cultures. There are cultural practices that you would expect to be immoral all over the world, but it is not. For example, I do not understand how anyone would feel it is normal to eat love ones who have died. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. It is normal for others to burn the dead. In my culture, we bury the dead. Because I feel it is inhuman for someone to eat their loves after they have died does not give me the right to tell them they are wrong and I am right. This is the means behind ethical relativism. T...
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.
The principle of Cultural Relativism was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the twentieth century. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887; “Civilization is not something absolute, but relative and our ideas and conceptions are true only if the civilization continues.” This term became popular among anthropologists after Boas’ death in 1942. He believed that the sweep of culture is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between culture and rac...
Cultural relativism is a contentious methodological and theoretical stance in anthropology, which advises that cultures should only be contemplated in their own context. This was conceptualised by Franz Boas (Boas, 1904). It rests on the idea that cultures are formed through the accumulative process of enculturation. Each culture has evolved in its own circumstances, thus it cannot be judged from a different framework (Herskovitz, 1955). The applicability of cultural relativism when it was founded has become divergent to its use today. As the world is becoming increasingly globalised through the spread of universal morality and migration, cultural relativism