Universalism: What Is Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism?

Cultural Relativism, just because cultures differ about what is right and wrong, does not mean that one culture is right and others are wrong. Cultural relativism is the view that no culture is above to any other culture when talk about systems of morality. It is believed that all cultural beliefs are equally acceptable and that truth itself is relative, depending on the cultural environment. Individuals that practicing the cultural relativism believed that all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are totally interdependence to the individual within a cultural identity. (Cultural Relativism-Illogical Standard, 2002). For cultural Absolutism, just because there are similarities in cultural situations and a relationship does not mean that there are only morally correct situations and relationships in existence or that they are morally correct at all. This theory explains that certain things are right or wrong from an objective point of view and independence to the culture. Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong because they are right or wrong in themselves (AnyaParvin95, 2011). Based on the explanation above, we can say that there is no confirmation about what is right and what is wrong. Both can be right and be

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

we are from different cultures, around the world, we all have similar values. Most cultures have a

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

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.

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

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

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.

The theory of “cultural relativism supports that there is no final appeal” (Brusseau, 2012, p.154). Hence, morality and ethics become totally subjective from place to place and purely culture oriented. As a result, when an action is considered unethical or immoral somewhere does not mean that the same action should face the same judgment elsewhere. This result is exactly the point where cultural relativism diverges from traditional ethical theories; which support that the adaption of universal

Defenders of ethical relativism hold that this theory supports the value of tolerance. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict states, “We shall arrive at a more realistic social faith, accepting as grounds of hope and as a new bases for tolerance the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials of existence.” (p.20) Benedict is stating that we should not judge another person or culture, because we all

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

A fundamental aspect of cultural relativism is the recognition of deviation from the observer’s own cultural and societal emphasis, and accepting that ideas are not inherently ‘good’ or bad’, but instead exist in some infallible category defined as ‘different’. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle that leads to lack of reformation derived from the desire to maintain the façade of thoughtfulness and acceptance regarding all cultures. Whilst universal morality is a contentious topic, and for the purpose of this argument we shall assume it does –not- exist (due to the existence of such leading to a quantifiable methodology of assessing cultures’ moral integrity, which would make this entire argument of cultural relativism redundant), there is the conceptualization of innate, ubiquitous desires of humanity such as personal freedom and perceived equality in terms of social status (1).

Have you ever stopped and ask yourselves or even just wondered if all of the society shares any of the basic moral principles? If so, great, I’m hoping by the end of this essay that you, my readers will have a better understand to the answer to the question above. Now in order to answer the question above, I ask myself these three questions, the first question I asked were there any basic moral principle that apply itself to all people, all cultures at all times no matter the situation, the second question was were there any argument that can be given to support or contradict the different versions of ethical relativism, and the last question is any of the arguments qualified to support the each of the arguments? The main purpose of this essay is to determine whether or not all society share universal laws between one another, or is it based solely on each culture and their beliefs?

We should come together and reach an understanding of each other, and move beyond a simple tolerance of life. We should try to embrace and honor the rich dimensions of diversification that is embodied within each individual in a way that is customary to fit one’s personality. This is better known as their own characterization or virtue. In Benedict’s “The Case for Moral Relativism” he states, “It is hard for us, born and brought up in a culture that makes no use of the experience, to realize how important a role it may play and how many individuals are capable of it, once it has been given an honorable place in any society…” (page 133). From this, he claims that from childhood to adulthood we are raised within certain standards of morals and considered to be categorized within groups. These standards are unique to each group of people. As we grow out of childhood, we become aware of the set of morals and values that have a tendency to change over age and time. I personally do believe that morals will continue to change overtime, and due to this, different culture variations will hold different cultural values and morals. It is hard to imagine a world in which we all believe the same things are “right” and wrong.” In “Why Morality Is Not Relative” James Rachels summarizes the theory into one brief statement: “To many thinkers, this observation- ‘Different cultures have different moral codes’- has seemed to be the key to understanding morality” (page 139). The idea behind this quote was to share his point of view; variations in diversity hold different types of moral views and interprets these views differently from those of another