Cultural Relativism: The Value Of Morals And Values

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, 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.

Cultural relativism is the belief that morality is culturally defined, therefore it is impossible to judge another culture by our own culture’s standards. Yet, it is difficult to clear a mind of judgement as well. As a result, cultural relativism is the view that one culture cannot prevail another culture because all cultures are equal, considering their cultural environment. Say you are raised to believe cats are pets, yet in other places such as Korea, a cat can be seen as food. One who believes in cultural relativism will not judge eating cats as wrong because there is no “right” or “wrong”. Instead, they believe that each culture must be seen with neutrality. The second form of relativism is individual relativism. Individual relativism is more specific, when discussing how right and wrong are relative to the unique experiences and preferences of the individual. Basically, individual relativism states that what one believes is true, and even if another disagrees, it does not mean that their belief is wrong. An example of this would be if someone strongly believed sweet potatoes are delicious, yet another person thinks that sweet potatoes don’t taste good what so ever. Neither can be told they are

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,

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.

Cultural Relativism is the idea that “right” and “wrong” are only specific to a culture and because of this it can be extremely oppressive to women. Accepting the rules and laws that are used to oppress women because of the belief in cultural relativism is not just harmful to women but can also be dangerous. Cultural Relativism, in its most common definition can be quite alluring, because it seems it teach us that we must be tolerant of other cultures, it most cases that is a good thing, but it the cases of rights of women it is downright inhuman. Cultural Relativism is a flawed concept, because it is assumed that there is no set of universal moral standards, so we should just accept things like genital mutilation and arranged marriage that

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 suggests that whatever any culture does is acceptable and we must positively judge other cultures’ practices—it is “right” for them. Who am I to judge differently? Cultural relativism arises out of a concern not to impose our cultural values on other cultures. The problem with believing that all values are

The conception, however to these separate beliefs often touches on a moral standpoint in which one must be a global citizen or a cosmopolitan to understand. This concept is Cultural Relativism, a lesson I myself learned from a young age but never had a name prior to GCP-10. Rachels began his text with an anecdote about Darius the king of ancient Persia and how he took citizens of the Callatian tribe and the Greeks in order to form his own experiment to prove cultural relativism. Darius asked the Greeks to eat the bodies of their fathers after they had died and the Greeks were repulsed by such a custom. When the Callatians were asked to cremate their fathers an identical response soon followed. Rachels from this story formed the concept that

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 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.

Cultural relativism is self-explanatory in its name but goes deeper beyond that. Cultural relativism states that standards are relative to one’s culture. There are no standards of morality shared by all societies; all rules are controlled by the society in which a person lives. If the moral code of a culture says that an action is right than according to those standards, the action is right. If the society says that a certain action is wrong, without any input from other cultures, the action is wrong. In cultural relativism, majority rules and any minority who wishes to defy the majority is seen as a rebellious reformer who is challenging the set culture. In cultural relativism, societies do not mix. The practice believes in conformity. If a person finds themselves in a culture other than their own they must adopt the practices of that particular culture. What might seem approvable in one society may be thought of as absurd in another and vice versa. No society can deem superiority over another because there is no set moral code that can be used to judge one culture as superior to another. The moral standards of our society have no special status, it is only one among several. At first glance, cultural relativism seems like a defendable viewpoint, but with further investigation, it proves to have weaknesses that cannot be overlooked. For an argument to be sound the premises must be true, and this is where cultural relativism falls short.

The general study of humans and their ways of life is called Anthropology. Anthropology have four classic subdivisions: Cultural (or socio-cultural) Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics Anthropology and Biological (or physical) Anthropology. He or she who typically had some training in each of these four classic subdivisions in fact, have connected them to one another within a large field anthropology study. Moreover, he or she can use the theoretical knowledge and findings of anthropology to solve real-world problems surrounding human beings or human customs. Anthropologist has an idea that the beliefs and practices of a culture should be understood within the context that particular culture’s background, history and current events surrounding it called Cultural relativism. The main objective of this final research paper is examining my own culture from etic (i.e. outsider’s) perspective and another culture from emic (i.e. insider’s) perspective to clearly show my personal understanding of cultural relativism. Specifically, I will examine the rites of passage in African American girls/women lived reality and effects of the intersectional race, class and gender oppression in America coupled with discussing Japanese different rituals comparison to American outlook into death and the afterlife. All in all, rites of passage are done differently and makes a difference in its own society.

If we look at the world today, there are millions of cultures centered everywhere. With this much cultures in the world, everyone is bound to believe that they’re all different. Even though they are different in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the case, do we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge the cultural practices of other societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, we begin to have a deeper insight this idea of