Cultural Difference Argument Is Not A Sound One

Over the last several decades, long established taboo, including the right to abortion, the right to death, and LGBTQIA+ rights have become much more acceptable throughout the United States. Consequently, it seems like basic moral norms are up to the interpretation of current and societal ideals. Moral relativism is the belief that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ exist only by comparison to a society’s moral code. It is an enticing moral theory in a world where so little seems absolute. Paul Boghossian, author of “The Maze of Moral Relativism” too believes that this idea of relativism is gaining popularity and importance in contemporary culture. However, he not only believes that moral relativism is not true, but an illogical or ‘incoherent’ moral theory. Moral relativism, he claims, cannot exist because there is no middle ground between ‘moral absolutism,’ the idea that moral facts are true across all cultures and time, and ‘moral nihilism,’ the rejection of all morality as people understand it, including the ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Boghossian’s argument is able to logically destroy moral relativism, leaving little option other than to accept that absolute morality exists somewhere.

Culture is the Backbone of a society, when something/someone tries to alter it or go against it everyone will notice. In this issue pointed out by Ruth Macklin, we look at the problems that can arise when an individual’s culture and autonomy clash. Every year there at least 30 million immigrants from all over the world that move to the United states of America, making America one of the most culturally diverse country in the world. Keeping this in mind, we will focus on Ruth Macklin’s issue of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Critics argue that we associate culture with a society, community and or family, but rarely with a single individual, thus placing it above the individual person. In this paper we are going to look at four different scenarios on from Ruth Macklin’s article.

Morality seeks to provide a moral agreement that binds the people in a society by providing a blueprint of shared values that dictate what is right and wrong. The two principles of morality are moral objectivism and moral relativism. The thesis of this essay is that moral relativism is a better guide to morality as compared to moral objectivity as it puts things into perspective by considering moral ideas and variables on a universal understanding.

Moral relativism is a prominent idea in philosophy that asks the question “Who am I to judge?”. This question focus primarily on morals between different people and cultures. As different cultures have different values and ways of life it stands that the morals between two cultures would vary, whether it be minimally or vastly. Midgley believed it was impossible to understand other cultures’ way, and that if we wanted to remain respectful and non discriminatory then we must not pass any form of judgement upon each other.

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

In this paper, I will summarize the article and offer comments about these selected aspects, identify some relevant and irrelevant issues. I will also suggest areas where addition research findings would help in understanding relativism and common moral values in a simplistic and effective

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

In her essay, Midgley notes that moral isolationism is incoherent because judgment is an opinion, and is directly related to respect. It may appeal to some that moral isolationism is respectful, but it is not because it entirely arrogant. “Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them...to respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make a favorable judgement, however general and tentative. And we do not understand people in other cultures to this extent. Otherwise a great mass of our most valuable thinking would be paralyzed” (Midgley, 322). In order to respect a culture, judgment has to be involved. Due to this discrepancy, moral isolationism cannot make sense. For a rightful judgment, one should first understand the foreign culture that they are examining. Once an individual is fully knowledgeable of another culture’s ways, it is possible to make a rightful judgment. Whether the judgment is a good one, or a bad one, it is still necessary for one to gain full knowledge.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

However, Rachels also provides a different example that is actually a logical flaw that attributes to the Cultural Differences Argument. Some people believe that the earth is flat and others believe it’s round. He argues that because of cultural relativism,

Some would say that moral truth is another word for moral objectivism, since if something is true, then it means it’s an unchanging fact, hence it’s objective. Moral objectivism is the view that what is right or wrong is not dependent on individual or societal opinion, but instead is grounded on facts that are external to human society. It’s opposite is moral relativism which states that what is right or wrong varies according to each culture or each individual. In this essay I will prove that there is such a thing as moral truth, because relativism is not logical and it does not work. I will first discuss the most common arguments for relativism and I will rebut