Universalism Vs. Relativism, By Mathias Risse

The first positive aspect of cultural relativism is the belief that there is no universal culture even though culture is universal (Chiariello, 2013). That each cultures has their own separate beliefs, tradition, values, and morals. That there is no one true or false way of living. That the rights and wrongs of one culture might not be the same for another culture. For example, in most third world countries children are forced into hard labor to provide for their families. Children in the United States might think that to be wrong and unethical but to those children in those countries this is what is needed of them and doesn’t see it to be wrong or unethical in any way. That difference doesn’t mean that one’s culture is superior or inferior to another’s culture. It means that as human we have to adapt to the surrounding in order to survive.

Following the definition provided in module two, the ethical view of moral relativism basically says that anything goes in a culture, there are no moral codes that need to be universal to all people. Ethical or moral relativism states that every culture has a different view of morality, and we as humans need to respect that. Going by this explanation of moral relativism, relativists

Relativism is the philosophical idea that the views and beliefs of a person are valid and relative to them. It can include many positions, whether it be religious, moral, cultural or even political. Over the course of this quarter I have been introduced to many different theories like Utilitarianism, Deontological and Teleological theories, but none of them got my attention like Normative Cultural Relativism. What’s great about philosophy is that there are no right or wrong answers, yet I cannot help but realize that many philosophers nowadays are biased about Normative Cultural Relativism. Many don’t agree and rather attack the theory which is why I intend to defend it.

According to moral relativism, there are no guidelines as to what is considered right or wrong, therefore we are unable to judge one’s beliefs. The two types of relativism are individual and cultural. Individual relativism is the view that each person creates their own standards, while cultural relativism is that the societies create moral standard which are authoritative over the people. The founder of relativism, Protagoras, said “man is the measure of all things- of all things that are, and of things that they are not.” This ideally means that each person sets their own standards of truth by their own judgements. Moral relativism is practically the idea that a given thing is based upon the perception from which it is viewed.

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Jehovah’s Witness religion/cult. The background and core beliefs of this religion will be discussed as well as the flaws that can be found in it. There will be much attention given to how proponents of this cult view Jesus and the implications that those views bring. There will

In ‘A Defense of Ethical Relativism,’ Ruth Benedict shares her view on relativism by stating, “Most of those organizations of personality that seem to us most uncontrovertibly abnormal have been used by different civilizations in the very foundations of their institutional life… Normality, in short, within a very wide range, is culturally defined.” (Benedict, 1934) Moral relativism widely accepts the various beliefs and cultures that are present in society today, and while such tolerance is important, it can also come with downfalls. Because relativists do not believe in labeling actions as right or wrong, it eliminates liability, which could result in complete disorder and

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.

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

Ruth Benedict and Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is an ethical theory that believes that while morals do exist, they depend on each individual culture. This theory also rests on a few moral ideas, the first being that the majority rules. This means that whatever belief the majority of people in a particular society have (which is probably law) is considered morally right. The second point is that what may be considered morally right in one culture may not be right in another.

Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.

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.

Ethical relativism defined by Vaughn; it is not objective, because if an act is morally right by one person or morally wrong by a different person, then that is okay as well. Moral objectivism is defined as moral norms are valid for everyone. Rachels and Vaughn both define cultural relativism as moral rightness is whatever a culture or society approves of. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism basically consist of the exempt same theory. Thus being whether its and individual’s belief or a society’s belief both are acceptable. “If people’s moral judgements differ from culture to culture, moral norms are relative to culture (there are no objective moral standards)” (Vaughn 15). Moral objectivism is related to

Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).

Two main types of ethical relativism are cultural relativism and normative ethical relativism. Cultural relativism says that there are different cultures and they always have different ways of thinking behaving and learning from the generation before, and this can be seen in daily life just by how different countries do things like music, dress, and even politics. Normative ethical relativism says that there is no universal right or wrong in the universe instead it says that what is right or wrong is different from society to society and that there is no