The Pros And Cons Of Cultural Relativism

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. First of all, Rachels outlined the argument of the CER theory so that it can be easily to understood and critiqued. The argument for Cultural Ethical Relativism

It is a strong inductive argument, in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true. However, the premises are not absolutely true. Even though different cultures do different things, they still have some common beliefs, which they believe as human beings. For instance, rape is unacceptable in most parts of the world. Any person is equal to another, and they should not be attacked or disrespected for any reason. In addition, when looking at human rights, some countries might practice better than others. Some countries are communist or some have dictatorship, where human rights are still abandoned, whereas global trend is that human rights should be enhanced. On the contrary, this theory is good in the way it sees different cultures at the same level, so there is no judge between them. Nobody should underestimate others’ culture. Respect is essential when viewing one’s