The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism

1470 Words6 Pages
Weigh Prinz’s argument for moral relativism against the anti-relativist arguments put by James Rachel in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” Explain both philosophers cases. Which argument is stronger in your view and why? Defend your answer. From a young age, people question whether they are morally right about things all around them. Have our morals been taught to us from a young age? Do they truly exist are are they a norm imposed to people by society? Does morality really exist or is it just a creation of our imagination? The Oxford dictionary defines morality as the principles concerning a person being able to distinguish between right and wrong and good and bad behavior. Still, the meaning is not as clear as it seems. In the arguments presented by both Jesse Prinz and James Rachel both have a understandable point about morality however, Prinz argument for moral relativism is able to stand strongly against Rachel 's anti-relativist arguments. Jesse Prinz argues that morality is a culturally conditioned response. Just like other philosophers, Prinz believes in the concept of moral relativism. The concept revolves around the idea that morality is contingent or relative to cultural values in that society. In his argument for moral relativism, he claims that the morality held by various groups can all be true, the difference between them is the way in which it’s view by the world around them or those who don 't have or come from the same cultural values. Prinz states how objectivists, who argue against cultural relativism, believe that knowing what is wrong and what is rights depends on a universal rule rather than cultural values. The disagreement between the ideas of both the relativist and objectivist is argued by Prinz... ... middle of paper ... ...ctive truth however, there is a disagreement about the “truth”. All in all, morality is viewed differently all around the world. In some western societies, it is okay for one to let a homeless person die from hunger and cold weather while in others, that is seen as something that is morally wrong. Still, even when one knows something is morally incorrect, one would still act the same way because it’s the most convenient and effective decision at the time. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII was one of the options the U.S. had. However, because it was in the best interest of the U.S., it would have decreased the amount of casualties for the U.S. and Allies, the decision to drop the bomb was made. Many of the moral decisions made by people might not right, however, as explained by both Rachel and Prinz they are the best option for people at the time.
Open Document