Looking At Cultural Relativism, By John Ross Essay

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.

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

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.

However, Hadingham and Zinn both point out that the grandeur of survival and conquest is overstated. In Hadingham’s case, speculation of the Clovis’ origin are prevalent. The status of “big-game hunters” that the Clovis are renowned for is disputed by Hadingham, who mentions the uncovered bones of small prey in the Gault area. Furthermore, the extinction of many ancient animals were mostly due to the changing climate.  Hadingham uses a number of archeological facts and findings. As for Zinn, he points out the cruel treatment of Indians that were greatly responsible for the success of Christopher Columbus and the future colonists. Columbus’ soldiers recall the events in writing, detailing the deceit Columbus employed against the generous Indians. Wars were waged for land and food despite the initial charity of the Arawaks and other tribes. Using Bartolome de las Casas’ writings, Zinn shows the contemptuous treatment of the Indians by the Spaniards. The Spaniards who “grew more conceited every day,” in the words of Las Casas, tolled their Indian slaves to death in mines and slaughtered the innocent for fun. Outrageous quotas of gold was imposed on the Indians and cruel punishments was dealt to those who failed. Spain’s riches was built upon the blood of Indians, not by Columbus’

In Columbus’ letter to King Ferdinand of Spain, he starts off by describing the many islands he has found and taken possession of. Columbus wants to prove to the king, who has funded this journey for him, that he has found something and that what he has “found” is of worth. Although, he claims he found these islands, he did not find these lands empty. The land had already been occupied by the Native Americans and because of a language barrier between the two groups, Columbus was able to use that against them and prove its legality of his possession of the land. The Indians on the other hand had no idea what these Europeans were up too.

“It seemed to me that they were a people very poor in every thing.” () Some of their hair had never been cut, they barely wore any clothes, or their bodies were painted. “But everything they have they give for anything given to them, for they traded even pieces of bowls and broken glass cups.” () It seemed that Columbus was annoyed at the items the Indians offered to trade, “other little things that it would be tiresome to write down.” () By all means, nothing of what Columbus was looking for, gold and precious stones, “I was attentive and labored to find out if there was any gold.”

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,

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.

This also helps people understand and respect other cultures. I think it is possible to achieve total cultural relativism. A society that embraces the act that there is no “right” or “wrong” way of doing things. This makes it impossible for people to make judgments on other cultures. It charges modern society is demonstrated in strange ways. People try to deal with contradiction tolerance becomes an ultimate good which contradicts the entire relativism. Terrible crimes like murder demand moral judgement, but strict relativism cannot say that such actions are always

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.

When the pilgrim landed on Plymouth they didn't know how to do anything and they need help desperately. When the Natives came to help them the pilgrims thought they were alians. They looked very strange. They were pale like the pilgrims but very tan. Plus who would want to live on a place like

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.

Every individual in the world has their own culture they practice. A person's culture is sometimes not understood; however, that’s when the idea of cultural relativism comes up. The idea concerns a person’s beliefs and activities. It's based on a person’s culture. A cultural practice could be out of hand and at other times it's not. I believe that there are limitations to a person’s cultural practices. I limit myself to the point at which people do things that have not been proven to work. Nevertheless, I am okay with a practice that does not physically harm anyone.

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