More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral relativism and cultural relativism
Cultures and societies around the world often have different moral beliefs. From an anthropological perspective, to deny cultures any validity in their moral beliefs would be a delusional ethnocentric refusal of cultural relativism. From a moral philosophical perspective, however, this is a conflicting matter. Is morality then simply a social construct based purely on arbitrary opinions? Are there no universal moral truths? In response, conventional ethical relativism puts forth the notion that there are indeed no objective moral truths. In other words, “there are no absolute or objective moral standards that apply to all people everywhere”, which would make all moral beliefs justified as a result of cultural relativism (98, 100). Another response to this moral dilemma would be that moral objectivism still holds because morals
To believe that cultural relativism cannot coexist with objective moral truths would be mistakenly oversimplifying what objective moral truths entail. Anthropological cultural relativism often shows there are moral differences “only in belief[s], not in substantive moral principle[s]” (102). As Pojman points out, “[m]orality does not occur in a vacuum … [it] must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants, beliefs, history, and environment of the society in question” (102). Through understanding that we cannot judge and then impose our beliefs onto other cultures based on our own, we can see indirect similarities between moral principles across cultures that would otherwise appear immoral. To use another point raised by Pojman, the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is not about whether we should be morally allowed to kill people, it is about “whether fetuses are really persons … not the principle [emphasis added] of killing innocent people”
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
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
If moral principles are defined by cultures, how does one define a culture? If a social scientist were to dissect cultures into subcultures, and then divide those as well, he could logically continue making “cultural distinctions” until he comes to individuals as separate cultures. As a culture of one, each individual by relativism’s definition creates his own moral principles. This could be called ethical egoism (David Mills, personal communication). As logical conclusion extension of relativism, ethical egoism creates a world of moral lone rangers, with no one responsible to answer to any other.
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
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
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
Cultural relativism theorizes that the best way for different societies to function together at peace is for them to recognize that each culture must be allowed its own system of beliefs. One individual may believe that his or her culture’s belief system is the one true way. Is there any way to absolutely prove that that person’s morals are not correct? Not in the cultural relativist view. Cultural relativism states that no man from a different background can justifiably say that another society’s beliefs are wrong; that other society may believe that his ideas are wrong. The only way to resolve the matter peaceably, as cultural relativism acknowledges, is for societies to recognize their differences without attempting to force their beliefs upon one another; neither will they try to prove each other wrong. They must simply peacefully coexist without interference generated by belief systems.
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
When it comes to anthropological theories, it is hard to prove or disprove them because everyone has different experiences in their lives within their different cultures that contribute to their opinion on that theory. I believe this is true with the theory of cultural relativism. My experiences within my own culture and the beliefs of my culture have led me to both agree and disagree with different aspects, or lack thereof, of cultural relativism. I believe there exists a duality within the theory of cultural relativism, a duality that I am familiar with and that has become a significant part of my culture. I am from the Twin Cities in Minnesota. The “Twin Cities” refers to Minneapolis and St. Paul. Only divided by a river (or in some cases, just a street), these cities are of equal, yet different importance in Minnesota culture. My experiences spending time in the two cities have led me to live in duel cultures. While many people live in a duality of cultures through their ethnicity, I identify with duel cultures based on geography. My experiences in both Minneapolis and St. Paul contribute to my ambivalence regarding cultural relativism. In Anthropology, there is a gray area when it comes to generalizing about cultures, because we all come from different ones. The idea of duality is a familiar one with which I can apply to my own life and my own culture, as well as to the well-known anthropological theory that tries to find an answer to the question of what culture is.
“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
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
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 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.
Ethics is defined as a study that deals with what behavior is considered to be, good or bad. Ethics is about doing what is right for other people throughout society (Kraft). Ethical principles result from religions, philosophies, and cultural ideas. The world is changing and so is everything in it, judgments about what is ethically right and wrong are also changing. Ethical relativism is important within society, along with utilitarianism, deontology, virtue-based ethics, and ethical principles of healthcare.
Culture may be defined as the sum totaltotal of non-biological activities of a people. For anthropologists like Marvin Harris (1974). Culture is directly related to concrete material conditions of existence. It is a set of altitudinal and behavioral tools as well as a map of adapting to one’s environment. Culture is thus essentially adaptive. Following the concept of cultural relativism espoused by Margaret Mead (1968) it is the view of this article that culture must be seen asbe specific and valid in particular circumstances with value judgement as to its relative significance to other groups, even within the same nation-state or society. The point that is therefore being made is that there are some particularities of culture that characterize