Mary Midgley Moral Isolationism Analysis

“Rape is unique. No other violent crime is so fraught with controversy, so enmeshed in dispute and in the politics of gender and sexuality… And within the domain of rape, the most highly charged area of debate concerns the issue of false allegations. For centuries, it has been asserted and assumed that women “cry rape,” that a large proportion of rape allegations are maliciously concocted for purposes of revenge or other motives.”

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

Ruth Benedict was an American anthropologist and folklorist who greatly influenced philosophy through her studies of isolated societies. Her theory of cultural relativism has met both great acclaim and vehement criticism as an explanation of morality and behavior. Stepping away from the stance of ethical absolutism she calls us to take a different and perhaps harrowing approach, examining morals as socially approved customs rather than immovable and eternal cornerstones of all cultures. I argue that Benedict, through her examination of indigenous cultures, provides a sound argument for the relativity of morality – and the consequent lack of a universal moral standard to which all humans can be held.

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,

George Washington Carver was born into slavery January of 1860 on the Moses Carver plantation in Diamond Grove, Missouri. He spent the first year of his life, the brutal days of border war, between Missouri and neighboring Kansas. George was a very sickly child with a whooping cough, which later lead to his speech impediment, and he was tiny and puny. George's father, James Carver, died in a wood hauling accident when he was bringing wood to his master's house one day. George was sick a great deal during his early years. In 1861, when George was one year old, raiders kidnapped him and his mother with horses from their home in Missouri. Moses Carver, Mary's master, heard that a bushwhacker named Bentley knew Mary's whereabouts along with

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

America has a proud history of being a country that has many different ethnicities and cultures living within its borders. But one of the most prevalent cultures is one that transcends race or country of origin, rape culture. The term used by modern day feminist and gender activist defines a culture which normalizes rape and sexual assaults because of the deeply rooted societal attitudes towards gender and sexuality. In a rape culture the instances of rape are accepted as everyday occurrences and even as the prerogative of men, resulting in the stigmatization and blame placing of rape victims. Although the phrase “rape culture” is relatively modern, the

Moral relativism is a problematic idea that will lead to a global society with no rules. If it is believed that you can not judge another for what they find morally acceptable, then it is not a far reach to say that you can not stop another person from doing what they find morally acceptable as well. With actions such as that, the world we live in would be drastically different from what it is now.

In her essay, Midgley notes that moral isolationism is incoherent because judgment is an opinion, and is directly related to respect. It may appeal to some that moral isolationism is respectful, but it is not because it entirely arrogant. “Nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them...to respect someone, we have to know enough about him to make a favorable judgement, however general and tentative. And we do not understand people in other cultures to this extent. Otherwise a great mass of our most valuable thinking would be paralyzed” (Midgley, 322). In order to respect a culture, judgment has to be involved. Due to this discrepancy, moral isolationism cannot make sense. For a rightful judgment, one should first understand the foreign culture that they are examining. Once an individual is fully knowledgeable of another culture’s ways, it is possible to make a rightful judgment. Whether the judgment is a good one, or a bad one, it is still necessary for one to gain full knowledge.

The cultural relativists have offered us a view on what is the good, is depending on whether the virtue is approved by one’s culture or not. This brings us to another question—what is culture? Seemingly, people in a different country are practicing different religions so that everyone should have

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.

Indeed, people consider their traditional beliefs when introduced to Western culture because it allows them to draw valuable lessons from cultural import and enforce their own principles and notions. However, there are instances in which this “cultural imperialism” separates individuals from their traditional beliefs, regardless of their cultural surroundings and efforts to prevent cultural assimilation, because in many situations

It is fair to agree with the idea of Moral Relativism. Each culture has their own views of right or wrong. Stepping into different cultures is similar to being a part of new societies, each with differing practices and ideals. There is no single definition of what is right or what is wrong. Individuals has their own opinions on separate topics and each reason for a belief is acceptable. For example, in some cultures it is important for a man to have multiple wives and women are not allowed to leave their homes without a man accompanying them. In the United States, it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and each woman has the freedom to go where ever they like whenever they please. When discussing the idea of abortion individuals have opposing views depending on what their morals are and if they believe in the life of an unborn child. While some people believe it is entirely up to the pregnant women whether they desire to abort their

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

We must first understand the two distinct theories regarding perception of outside cultures: Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism. Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.[1] The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion - these ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity’s unique cultural identity.[2] The logical alternative to ethnocentrism is Cultural relativism, the practice of judging a