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.
Implicit in the basic formulations for both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any another. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified.
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...
... middle of paper ...
...mplication would be significant in that it would give rise to judgment of morality outside and independent of culture. One example would be the active practice of anti-Semitism directed at the destruction of Jewish peoples. Could such a practice ever be construed as an opinion or even routine cultural custom? By any stretch it would be hard to imagine anything less than universal condemnation of killing for no other reason than genocide. This objection is strong, perhaps opening an avenue of attack toward Cultural Relativism on the basis of some type of universal morality. It is impossible to conceive of an arbiter to judge such a class of morality. Even though the example is strongly suggestive, that’s not the same as proving with certainty that there are sufficient grounds to say that it should be okay to consider any custom of another culture as inferior.
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
Yes, there can be different moral rules for different ethnic and cultural groups. Every culture should be allowed to follow their own set of moral rules to a certain extent .
When we critic something to be wicked or upright, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid. Without ideas like this, we would have no structure of comparison for our own strategies, no chance of earning by other’s insights or faults. In this space, we could form no decisions on our own actions. If we admit something as a good fact about one culture, we can’t reject to apply it to other cultures as well, whatever conditions acknowledge it. If we reject to do this, we are just not taking the other’s culture beliefs
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
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
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.
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
“Different cultures have different moral codes”, James Rachels discusses in his article Why Morality Is Not Relative? (Rachels, p. 160). A moral code is a set of rules that is considered to be the right behavior that may be accepted by a group of individuals within a society. Each culture tends to have their own individual standards and moral codes. Moral codes are guidelines laid out by a cultures ancestors. Standards are guidelines set forth by the individual themselves. Standards and morals don’t always have to be the same, but there are instances where they are. The moral codes claim what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Moral codes outline what behaviors individuals are supposed to make. These codes are basically laws, but specifically
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...
Before moving in to the pros and cons of such a theory, we should talk about what moral relativism entails. According to moral relativism, there is not a single true or just morality. There are a variety of moral frames of reference, and whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, is relative to one or another moral frame of reference. An action can be morally right relative to one moral frame of reference and morally wrong relative to another. Morals and values are subject to the context of the culture in which they are created, and therefore are subjectively good and bad. Since our moral beliefs are the result of an implicit bargaining process among persons of widely varying wealth and strength, no principle will emerge as generally acceptable unless it benefits all the parties to the bargaining. Now that you have a feel for what mo...
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 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
Each culture has their own unique set of beliefs and morals. What I believe to be ethical might be totally unethical or nonsense to you or even many others. For example, ISIS might believe that it is acceptable for them to behead others and perform terrorist acts in other countries. On the other hand, this would be completely unacceptable and unethical to many others because their cultures are completely different and these activities are not part of their culture. What is morally sound to an individual might not be to another individual. This then ties into cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is basically the idea that there are no universal morals that cultures share since each culture has a different view on what is right and wrong.