More handpicked essays just for you.
Why it is important to understand the concept of cultural relativism
Why it is important to understand the concept of cultural relativism
Explain briefly what cultural relativism is
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Today's topic is on whether morality is completely relative or whether there are any moral absolutes. We as individuals and as a culture have certain sets of morals and ideals that we stand by. Whether or not certain morals carry over to various cultures or if morals are unique to that culture is left up to debate between Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Today I will try to show that James Rachels argument is logically stronger than Ruth Benedict's argument Ruth Benedict is an American anthropologist who views morality as dependent on the varying histories and environments of different cultures. Benedict argues that many cultures are completely opposite when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle, rather than having a strict …show more content…
To support his argument, he gives an example of the Eskimo practice of infanticide. According to Rachels, Eskimo mothers often kill the female babies after birth, without any sort of social repercussion While this may seem heartless to most cultures, we must ask ourselves why they would do such a thing. The Eskimos are a nomadic tribe whose male members are often killed while hunting or from the extremely cold temperatures. Therefore, the killing of female babies when born helps to keep the population from becoming overwhelmingly female and while making sure that hunters will always be available. As Eskimos are nomadic, tribes are constantly on the move in search of food, so the less children helps to reduce the burden on the family whilst traveling. Mothers can only carry one baby in her parka and other family members are not always available to carry the other children. This isn't to say that the mothers who perform infanticide do not love their children, as they do indeed love their offspring. However, living in the environment that they do is incredibly difficult and everything that is done, is done in order to survive. An Eskimo child is actually nursed much longer than that of a westerner. Eskimo mothers generally nurse their children from their breast for four years, and sometimes longer. The Cultural Relativism Argument can be shown as follows: 1. While …show more content…
Most cultures do not have a reason to believe that their fellow members are out to poison them with black magic. In fact, it can be assumed that even those cultures whom share such a belief do not have any reason to. It is, however, difficult to find an underlying unique factor that is shared by all cultures and that would drive a culture to hold that specific belief. Ruth Benedict is quite correct in her analysis of the differences between cultures. There are a few attributes of societies that are not based upon any widespread good code. There is no rule that expresses that ethical societies must submit to such a code, and that any society that does not will be not moral. There are some essential good codes that each society must comply with to survive, for example, the fundamental judgment of homicide (exemptions, for example, self-protection, aside) and the valuation of the youthful however as Benedict states, profound quality varies in every general public, and is a helpful term for socially sanction propensities." indeed, societies are just guided by extremely essential all inclusive good codes needed for survival. As a rule, silly murder is to be viewed as a negative activity that is impeding to the advancing of society. Along those same lines, it is basic that the youthful of the general public be watched over so
In Ruth Benedict’s “Ethics are Relative”, she argues that because morals and values change with time and across culture, there can be no solid judgment for any action to be consistently deemed “right” or “wrong”, since the same action will be viewed differently when considered from different points of view. Benedict’s primary assertion is that the ethics seen as good or bad by modern cultures are not better to those found in primitive cultures, but are the values we have developed over time. “Most of the simpler cultures did not gain the wide currency of the one which, out of our experience, we identify with human nature, but this was for various historical reasons, and certainly not for any that gives us as its carriers a monopoly of social
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
In John Ludwig Mackie’s book Inventing Right and Wrong, he claims that “in making moral judgments we are pointing to something objectively prescriptive, but that these judgments are all false”. By saying this, he supports his main point that there are no objective values. However, John McDowell will be against Mackie’s argument, for he suggests that besides primary qualities, there are also secondary qualities that can be objective. I hold the same viewpoint as McDowell’s. In this essay, I will firstly explain Mackie’s argument, then illustrate McDowell’s objections, and finally explore some potential responses by Mackie.
The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on John Ludwig Mackie’s argument that all moral judgments are false considering they presuppose moral objectivity which is itself inaccurate. To do so, I shall explain Mackie’s reasoning as to why the belief that moral values are objective was founded, and clarify Mackie’s arguments for why such an idea is misleading. Furthermore, I shall demonstrate how John McDowell’s color analogy can successfully prove Mackie wrong. The argument of this essay will establish that Mackie is immune to the idea of moral objectivity for he finds it queer and unsupportive of the relativity shown throughout the world. However, Mackie fails to acknowledge that properties that are dependent on
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
Arthur, John, and Scalet, Steven, eds. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Eighth Edition, 2009.
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
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.
Rachels says that “different cultures have different moral codes” and I believe that is true what might be okay in one culture could be absolutely immoral in another. His reference to what Daruis notice between the Greeks and the Callatians can show us that each culture has their own method of dealing with a situation. As well as the Eskimos who had multiple wife and use the method of infanticide. This being unheard of, immoral to the people of America but since the time of Herodotus they have notice “the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture.” I think this concept is right however, I haven’t actually seen a culture as different as my, I have seen some small differences and I know some culture have big differences to mine but I haven’t encounter them. I...
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.