Cultural Morality: Comparative Analysis between a Fine Balance and the Poisionwood Bible

The highest award of the nation, the Medal of Honor, is awarded to a member of the Navy, Coastal Guard, or Marine Corps by the President of the United States who has shown gallantry by jeopardizing his or her life throughout the combat against the adversary. The Medal of Honor was created after the Civil War and began to be issued by the United States military to motivate people into volunteering and joining the military. On December 21, 1861, the Medal of Honor was signed and on July 25, 1963, the Medal of Honor was amended. The standards for earning the Medal of Honor changed after the Civil War because now recipients are required to be in combat with the enemy. There are fewer opportunities for the Meal of Honor since the Vietnam War because combat has changed.

Cultural relativism is the idea that human behavior, ideas, and emotions must be understood in the context of the whole culture in which they occur.

Father to the Price family, Nathan Price emerged his family into this mission in the hopes to spread religion to Congo. He chose to endanger his family in the hopes that he would be able to affect the religion of everyone he influenced. Similar to Rachel, Nathan also represents western ideals influencing Congo. Nathan believed that an education for women was a waste. "Sending a girl to college is like pouring water in your shoes. [...] It's hard to say which is worse, seeing it run out and waste the water, or seeing it hold in and wreck the shoes." This proves that Nathan Price was sexism towards his family was driven by his belief of Christianity. Throughout the book Nathan represents the Christianity in America in the sixties.

Nathan’s motives in the novel are to change the religious traditions of the Congolese people and replace them with his views on what religion should be. Nathan is the reason all the Prices were dragged to this place. He feels that he can fix these people, which is an example of western cultural arrogance. While Nathan is the driving force for this theme, all the Prices are guilty of cultural arrogance in this novel. Rachel, Leah, Adah, and Ruth May all portray that their coming to Africa is meant to bring a superior way of life to the Congolese.

All families have conflicts, and the Price family is no exception. Within the story there is an overriding conflict regarding the Price women‘s opposition to the move to Africa. Beyond this, Nathan has many other conflicts with each of his daughters. Leah and her father had a very different relationship than the other three Price daughters. Leah is the only daughter that wholeheartedly supports her father completely. As the story moves on she is faced with the harsh realities of daily life in the Congo, and begins to see her Fathers faults. She soon wants to be her own person, and not be controlled by her father. The major parent/child conflict arises when Nathan does not recognize his daughter’s

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 the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values,

As their journey to and through the Congo is just beginning it is already seen that compromise will be the key source for survival. The Congo did not have much to offer the Price family, though Leah has high expectations for it. She “expected everything: jungle flowers, wild roaring beasts. God’s Kingdom in its pure, unenlightened glory.” ( Kingsolver, 17) The Congo is already revealing an expectation Leah would never have found between the pages of a King James version, the rewiring of her thoughts on equality and her inner need to fight for justice are compelling emotions that are overtaking her. She can see that this place poses a potential challenge much greater than anything a hot Georgia summer put her family through. Still measuring her worth in the few short breaths her father permits her, Leah is still determined the Congo would not stop her from gaining the acceptance of her father. “If only I could ever bring forth all that I knew quickly enough to suit father” (Kingsolver, 37), but little did she know that nothing her female mind could do or say would suit the righteous Nathan Price. Similar to The White Man’s Burden, once given the thought of superiority nothing “beneath’ that was beneficial. Leah’s cognitive thought process is starting its shift into survivor instead of

Any person that would judge somebody on their cultural standards or traditions is guilty of ethnocentrism. When people are guilty of this they believe that what they’ve learned is right is the most superior and what other people and cultures do is completely abnormal and weird. On the other hand cultural relativism is quite opposite; it is the belief that all cultures are equally valid and no culture is more superior then another when comparing them.

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.

Cultural relativism means the exact opposite of ethnocentrism. It can be summed up as believing that “all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity” (www.cultural-relativism.com). This means that there is no definite “right” or “wrong”, but rather an ever-changing set of values for each separate culture.

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

In this paper I will discuss Cultural Relativism and argue that the cultural difference argument is not a sound one, because its premise does not prove or disprove its conclusion. Further, I will use this to prove that morals can be objectively true and do not have to change on a culture to culture basis. Cultural Relativism theorizes the nature of morality and whether moral truths are correct even if they are not agreed on across all cultures.