Cultural Relativism: It's Wrong To Jeopardize A Culture

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.

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.

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

He is comparing and trying to relate two things so dissimilar that it boggles the mind to think of comparing them in the first place. To begin with, Rachels seems to be implying that since, one is obviously wrong and that we have factual evidence to the contrary, that is what makes them wrong. That works, but when it's applied to something like morality and ethics like he is trying to do, it makes no sense. Since when and where has there ever been a fact based moral code? Who says morally what is correct and what is not within society or for that matter for the good of humankind? Reading further, he states that the whole point is that the original conclusion does not follow from the premise laid forth by the cultural relativists. This is true based on what he gives in the second example, but his example is construed in order to get such results. Next Rachels goes on to further try and prove cultural relativism has some problems. In the next section, he evaluates the seriousness of the cultural relativist and what that exactly entails. Looking at the consequences, he says that we, as cultural relativists, would have to condone the actions of another culture as not being less inferior. There is no problem there. Where the problem begins is when he brings up slavery and genocide, things that are considered immoral to our society in particular. On a personal

Going off that, in cultural relativism what is right or holds moral value does so from one’s culture. What does this mean then to the disenfranchised – for instance, the non-white, indigent, women, or the mentally impaired? When they breach from the culturally accepted norm they don’t receive the same protection as those in power. The author of our book, Judith Boss states: “cultural relativism promotes ethnocentrism and legitimates hatred and discrimination.”

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

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

Rachels’ three part argument against Cultural Relativism begins with the assertion of his first point. If Cultural Relativism is true then the three sub points he presents must also be true. The first is the idea

The two most prominent arguments for moral relativism include the argument of cultural diversity as well as the argument of tolerance. When it comes to cultural diversity, relativists argue

In spite of cultural relativism providing a stronger form of ethical relativism than moral subjectivism, cultural relativism ultimately fails. A weak argument for cultural relativism is that because a diverse morality appears to exist in the world, cultural relativism must be true.

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

Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.

Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. No culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.

Cultural Relativism is the belief that morality is based off what the culture believes. So when a cultures majority agrees that infanticide is morally right then its right. No matter what the culture is always right. Also, one cannot challenge or discard the views or morality because as said before the culture is right. With Cultural Relativism the culture decides what is morally right or wrong and that culture will always be correct in their views, even if their views on morality changes.