Is Cultural Relativism A Good Argument?

When it comes down to religion I must say that in no way would my point of view change if someone had a different opinion then I do. Why? Because one whose view would change after speaking to a cognitive

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

Have you ever thought about what you believe in or where your belief comes from? Your beliefs come from your family, what you see on TV or what you here on the radio, and even yourself. Your beliefs reflect who you are and what type of person you are going to be.

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

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

Rachels subtlety uses Nazi Germany as his case in point, which became a slaughter house for any persons with a Jewish belief. This is event was a moral atrocity, it is wrong regardless of the context it happened in. But a true cultural relativist cannot criticize this event, or any similar events, even though it may seem right to criticize the situation if only a little bit. From this, Rachels has strengthened his argument against cultural relativism. This also strengthens Rachels own ideas of objective moral realism. That is a moral objective standard that we can use to differentiate between right and wrong, and in turn we can be critical of other societies.

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

I think I always knew that my beliefs were not actually my beliefs, but I always told myself otherwise. I didn’t want to be the lone person in the family who didn’t believe in God. I was afraid of being looked down upon, since everyone I knew followed these stories and loved to do so.

Jeremy Bentham is a teleological/consequential philosopher or consequentialist, one who focuses on the consequences and ends instead of intention and actions. Bentham’s focus carries more weight than that of Immanuel Kant or John Stuart Mill and their views. Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy focuses on measuring pain and pleasure for the greatest number of morally significant beings through their actions. Bentham presents guidelines that measure the intensity, duration, (un) certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and extent of the pain and pleasure that a certain action beholds and uses these measurements to determine if the action promotes the greatest good (being pleasure in Bentham’s case) for the greatest number of morally significant beings (Hoff 2017).

Where Ruth Benedict believed morality is relative, James Rachels disagrees. This is where I would have to agree with James Rachels criticisms regarding the Cultural Difference Argument. The premise argues that different cultures have different moral codes. The conclusion argues that there is no “objective” truth in morality and “right” and “wrong” are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Cultural relativists argue from facts about different cultural outlooks to the conclusion about the status of morality. Rachels uses the shape of the earth as an example. In some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. In others, people believe it is spherical. If using the Cultural Difference Argument, our premise would be that societies disagree about the shape of the earth. We would then conclude there is no fact of the matter about the shape of the earth (Rachels p.20-21).

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,

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.

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.

Cultural relativism is one of the core concepts of anthropology. Are there any limits to this concept? If so, what are they? Is there a place in anthropology for the idea of universal human rights?

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