Cultural Relativism

Moral relativism explains plenty of cultural differences. It allows different societies to have different standards of rightness and validates them. John Ladd details, “[as a result,] whether or not it is right for individuals to act a certain way depends on the society to which they belong” (31). He concludes that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which all men abide by. By combining the diversity thesis (each culture is different) and the dependency thesis (people act differently dependent of

In “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, James Rachels presents six claims that have been made by cultural relativists. One of the six claims that Rachels presents in section 2.2 of the article is that different societies have different moral codes. I believe that Rachels thinks this claim is true. Section 2.1 of the article does a good job at explaining this idea. In this section, Rachels gives several examples of the differences that can be found in moral codes of different people groups throughout time. One of the specific examples he mentions is the different burial rituals of the Greeks and the Callatians. The Greeks perform a ritual that includes burning the dead. The Callatian ritual consists of eating the dead. The Greeks and Callatians, while encountering each other, both stated that the other’s ritual was inhumane. This disagreement, according to Cultural Relativism, is okay and to be expected because the two moral codes come from two drastically different societies. A modern example of this claim is that up until recently in China, small feet were praised and larger feet were frowned upon for women. Radical efforts to prevent women’s feet from growing included foot-binding. This method of prevention caused women to constantly be in pain. Women’s foot size in the United States isn’t emphasized like the way it used to be in China. Therefore, citizens of the United States believe that Chinese foot-binding was a barbaric method, while people in China would think

Rachel and Prinz both define Cultural Relativism as the notion that two separate cultures may place into practice completely different moral principles and will both remain morally correct for doing so. They both go further and agree that no set of morals are inherently greater than any others and that there is no objective moral high ground to begin with because no society should impose its judgement on another.

basic view of what is right and wrong, so their beliefs are not that different from our culture. This

Ethnocentrism is difficult to overcome in trying to understand the ways of others cultures. It usually leads people to believe that their own culture’s way of life is in some ways better or more natural than that of others. It is also hard to avoid this perspective because people are socialized to think in ways consistent with their cultural values and to evaluate practices in terms of how well they fit with a culture's views on what is good or bad. In general, cultures tend to value more those characteristics for which their own culture is particularly accomplished. The cultural variation in moral reasoning, described next would seem to behoove one to be slow to pass judgement on other cultures and first consider why the carious cultural differences exist as they do.

All cultures have morals and ethics, but what looks unethical to us could possibly be a way of life for that particular culture. If they think they are right about their morals and ethics, how can we judge them? Here in America we do have a ‘standard set of morals’ but who’s to say that we all follow those rules?

Cultural relativism is not Objectivism, which is a moral theory that states that there are certain moral standards that everyone should follow regardless of their opinion and indifference towards them. Cultural relativism is one of the two forms of Ethical Relativism. The latter one belongs to a form of moral skepticism. It states that moral standards are not objective, but relative to the standards of a person or a society. Consequently, cultural relativism is based on the belief that a moral standard is correct only when approved by the system of beliefs of a society, or wrong when such beliefs go against those of the society in general. Cultural relativism is similar to the view of ethical subjectivism, which states that a correct moral standard is the one approved by each individual, which means that morality is based on the beliefs of each person. An example of cultural relativism is a Patriarchal society in which women were undermined. In these societies women were not allowed to direct any political, economic, or cultural activities. Their role was mainly to cook and take care of the children. For many of us this is not morally correct since most of us in western societies consider that women should have the same rights as men have. However, according to cultural relativism the ideals of the Patriarchal society wouldn 't be morally wrong since morality is relative to what each society considers it 's guiding ideals, even if that includes the discrimination of women.

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

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.

Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

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.

One of those rights is the right to freedom of thought, which means that every human being has the right to believe in what they want to believe. As a result, no person should judge other beliefs because they’ll just influence others to do the same. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 states that,” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and that the right includes,” freedom to change his religion…either alone or in a community…” Through this right, everyone can believe what they want we have no right to judge. If we judge them, then we ourselves infringe on everyone’s right to be equal (article 1). Through cultural relativism, everyone can keep their rights and the world would rest in peace without any unnecessary fights. Instead of trying to judge the cultural beliefs of others, we could instead attempt to gain a better understanding of their beliefs. An example is in Things Fall Apart, where Mr. Brown and Akunna talk to each other in hopes that they would convert each other. They both have different views on religion; Mr. Brown believes in Christianity while Akunna believes in multiple gods. However, instead of immediately judging the beliefs of each other, they sit down and talk to each other peacefully about it. In the end, they learn that their religions are not as different as they had first thought. They both have “one supreme God” and they both have