Evaluate Rachel's arguments against cultural relativism. Is he right to endorse objective moral realism? DINH NAM TRAN 308213904 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
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
about every culture, with no single, undisputed answer to show for it. James Rachels touches on this question in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, within the sections “The Challenges of Cultural Relativism” and “Ethical Egoism.” There is an important distinction that can be made between cultural moral relativism and individual moral relativism, but ultimately their meanings rejoin. The distinction does allow individual moral relativism to be compared to ethical egoism. Both theories begin by being centered
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 an acceptable theory to adhere to. A society is a collective group of people who are either figuratively or literally aggregated together. There are many societies, sub-societies, and communities that are overlapping. At the same time, every living individual in the world makes up an umbrella society or community that constructs the present-day society. In “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels claims that there are consequences to accepting cultural relativism, but
Cultural Relativism is not Ideal In The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachel’s main argument is that cultural relativism is not creditable, but the whole theory of what cultural relativists believe, isn’t completely incorrect. Cultural relativism is the theory that beliefs, activities, and most values are based on the person’s culture. In other words, right and wrong is different in each culture. I agree with James Rachel on his view of cultural relativism because he has very good reasons
Cultural Relativists believe that no countries moral code is objectively better than another. However, James Rachels critique questions the very foundation Cultural Relativism stands on. I will argue that Rachels’ criticism of Cultural Relativism is a compelling and logical disagreement. Relativism has three basic flaws; that the Cultural Differences Argument exaggerates the depth of cultural disagreements, that it asserts people's values do not evolve over time, and that it ignores the limits
Cultural relativism, pioneered in 1906 by sociologist William Graham Sumner, introduces the idea that there is no universal code of ethics. In "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," written by James Rachels, Rachels explains and challenges the ideas presented by Sumner in cultural relativism. Rachels explains, "Cultural relativism is the doctrine that all moral values derive entirely from individual cultural codes, and that there are no objective, independently correct moral values. In other words
Is cultural relativism good for our society? Cultural relativism is a belief where there are no absolute moral views or beliefs can be apply to all cultures, which makes “right” and “wrong” different in every society; what is considered “right” in one society may be considered “wrong” in another. Since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. If this belief is held true, then every culture will have their own set of “rules” to live by
“The Elements of Moral Philosophy” James Rachels discusses the positives and negatives regarding the concept of cultural relativism, but his overall position is that cultural relativism is not a strong philosophy. On the flip side of that Immanuel Kant has a completely different ethical theory that is based around deontology. Despite its positives, cultural relativism cannot be defended against Rachels’ criticism, but Kant’s ethical theory cannot necessarily defeat cultural relativism either. Cultural