Cultural relativism is the idea that moral and ethical systems varying from culture to culture, are all equally credible and no one system is morally greater than any other. Cultural relativism is based on the concept that there is no “ultimate” standard of good and evil, so the judgement of what is seen as moral, or immoral, is simply a product of one’s society and/or culture. The general consensus of this view is that there is no ethical position that may be considered “right” or “wrong” in terms of society and culture (Cultural Relativism). In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is not an adequate view of morality by providing evidence of its most common logical problems and faulty reasoning.
Seungbae’s essay on cultural relativism argues that every moral decision one makes is only relevant within the sense of right and wrong depending on their cultural standards. He makes comparisons with cultural ethics as with the laws of motion but does not seem to necessarily relate today’s use of cultural relativism, and it also becomes a sort of backwards continuum in which the relativism that he argues for turns into an absolutist point of view, therefore turning his philosophy into what he is arguing against. He also states that there is a correspondence between Einstein’s laws of relativity with that of an ethical standpoint of relativity. His ideas on what is morally equivalent to right and wrong gives us a standpoint for a relativist view on the nature of reality and the placement of ethics within it.
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. They didn’t change because they were wrong because is impossible for a culture to be wrong according Cultural relativism. Finally, it makes ludicrous point of view as slavery equally moral as genital
Relativism is quickly dominating the cultural landscape of America, as proponents propagate messages of open-mindedness, social and religious tolerance, situational ethics, and the nonexistence of objective truth. Although relativism receives universal application throughout every facet of the human experience, the philosophy becomes especially significant when addressing moral concerns, such as abortion, dying with dignity, etc. While the concept of relativism appears superficially progressive, promising to eradicate discrimination and innumerable social barriers, the philosophy proves irrational under scrutiny. This brief essay will demonstrate the absurdity of moral relativism, while confirming the existence of objective morals.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
Social relativism lessens ethics to sociology: what is right is whatever a particular society says is right. Radical relativism reduces it to a matter of taste: what is right is whatever the person believes and feels. And this is not just an academic challenge. If there is no truth in ethics, then parents are also left in a discontented state of trying to persuade their children that they ought, or ought not, to act in certain ways because to do, or not to do so, matches to the desires of others in that society or the parents themselves. However, if there is no purpose in “right” to back up this caution, there can be no justifiable fault, just as there can be no convincing answer to the question of why youth ought to put back to the wishes of others, including their parents, at the expense of their own. Truth is so fundamental to the sense of our life, that it can be argued that anyone who claims that there is no truth, i.e., not even truths about the physical world, is being duplicitous. The fact that such individuals are alive to make such claims shows that they have depended most of their behavior on what they...
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
In my opinion, this form of punishment is barbaric and inhumane. No matter what culture we are in, nobody should suffer through this type of pain especially for a crime that we do not consider as something as serious as adultery. For instance, in Canada, we deal with adulterers by offering them the choice of divorcing. In the Muslim culture, having extramarital love affairs is as serious as we would think murdering a person would be. Obviously, we both have different moral differences when it comes to the subject of adultery. This concludes that Rachels was right about different cultures believing in different moral codes (Rachels 3). Moral relativism is "concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures" (Moral Relativism). By not agreeing to their type of cultural tradition, I am saying that moral relativism does not relate to this case and that I am an
Moral Relativism When faced with a choice of right or wrong, what matters do you consider to aid your decision? One commonly considers what their family or peers would do if they were in the same circumstance. This is because these individuals are apart of their culture and tend to share the same beliefs as them. Therefore, you are basing your actions on what would be commonly done by the individuals that make up your cultures. This is how someone who considers themselves a moral relativist would view the situation.