Argument Of Cultural Relativism

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.

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

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.

Cultural relativism is not Objectivism, which is a moral theory that states that there are certain moral standards that everyone should follow regardless of their opinion and indifference towards them. Cultural relativism is one of the two forms of Ethical Relativism. The latter one belongs to a form of moral skepticism. It states that moral standards are not objective, but relative to the standards of a person or a society. Consequently, cultural relativism is based on the belief that a moral standard is correct only when approved by the system of beliefs of a society, or wrong when such beliefs go against those of the society in general. Cultural relativism is similar to the view of ethical subjectivism, which states that a correct moral standard is the one approved by each individual, which means that morality is based on the beliefs of each person. An example of cultural relativism is a Patriarchal society in which women were undermined. In these societies women were not allowed to direct any political, economic, or cultural activities. Their role was mainly to cook and take care of the children. For many of us this is not morally correct since most of us in western societies consider that women should have the same rights as men have. However, according to cultural relativism the ideals of the Patriarchal society wouldn 't be morally wrong since morality is relative to what each society considers it 's guiding ideals, even if that includes the discrimination of women.

Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged.

In a world of over seven billion people, it is not always easy to decide on what is moral right or wrong. Ethicists attempt to answer this by examining practices among people of different beliefs, cultures, and ideas to come up with the moral reasoning behind them. Of course, this in itself is difficult because it is often unclear and there is a fine line as to how far we should push the boundary. Both ethical relativism and moral absolutism are used to answer difficult questions posed by cultural pluralism.

Cultural relativism says that good or bad are relative to culture and that the perspective of social acceptance is the perfect standard of morality. No culture or society is better to any different culture while comparing structures of morality. All cultural judgments are fairly reasonable and that certainty alone is relative, subject to the socializing environment. For this reason, the particular actions that are disapproved of are unacceptable. A cultural relativist claims that morals are closely related to law or another familiar aspect. What is justified in a particular culture may not be in another. They also believe that there are no objective moral requirements. Right and wrong is built upon the routines that have occurred in opposing

Cultural Relativism is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person.

According to Jesse Prinz, the origins of our moral inclinations is merely cultural. For centuries, moral relativism has been recognized as a liberal doctrine that has had significant implications on the society’s way of life, organization, and the perception of others. Prinz lays out an argument in which he claimed that morals differ

The definition of moral relativism is that the moral judgments of true or false is relative based on many factors and there is no universal moral judgment is absolutely right or wrong. In this paper, I want to argue for moral relativism. In my opinion, there is no objective morality that all morality is made of people’s opinion, which influenced by different culture, time, and all the factors around individuals.

We all face moral decisions each day. However, those daily situations may not oblige you to stop and think critically about your moral reasoning. Moral Relativism is ethical judgments that has a philosophized belief that right and wrong is not absolute values, nevertheless are personalized according to the person and his or her situation or cultural orientation. Therefore moral relativism comes in two forms, “what’s right for you but not for me. The second form is cultural subjective or cultural relativism saying “morality differs with different cultural” so each culture has its own form of morality, and whatever is right for each culture means its right without an ultimate standard of what is ultimately right. It is the claim that no ethical system is better than another. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are one-sided. It holds the certainty that there is no objective morality. Moral Relativism cannot

Cultural moral relativism begins with the idea that morality is relative to culture and that a person’s beliefs and activities are socially approved customs. Therefore, morality is a matter of actions that are only morally obligatory for a person if it is accepted by that person’s culture. Ruth Benedict illustrates the fact that humans have a full range of customs that human behavior is capable of. The selection process is non-rational and subconscious, similar to selection process for human speech. Using this analogy, Ruth Benedict was able to prove the cultural moral relativism by showing that nothing underlies customs, nothing by which can be evaluated. Therefore, cross-culture judgement are not valid.

Some would say that moral truth is another word for moral objectivism, since if something is true, then it means it’s an unchanging fact, hence it’s objective. Moral objectivism is the view that what is right or wrong is not dependent on individual or societal opinion, but instead is grounded on facts that are external to human society. It’s opposite is moral relativism which states that what is right or wrong varies according to each culture or each individual. In this essay I will prove that there is such a thing as moral truth, because relativism is not logical and it does not work. I will first discuss the most common arguments for relativism and I will rebut

Ethical Relativism is the moral theory that there are no absolute standards of Ethics. It looks at notions of right or wrong as dependent upon an individual’s interpretations, this is subjectivism, which regards morality as personal resolutions. Ethical Relativism contends that morals are also culturally based. Conventionalism, is the notion that morals are given value only within the context of social expectations. The Diversity Thesis depends on the Anthropological fact that different societies have differing moral codes. Furthermore, moralities are fluctuate as societies and people evolve. Therefore, in Ethical Relativism, there are no universally valid moral standards and all ethical principles are measured to be equally acceptable, as there are no moral principles that apply to all people at all times.

Different societies have different moral codes. Cultural relativism claims that ethics is relative to individuals, groups, cultures and societies. Relativism resists universal moral normal. The moral code of society determines what is right or wrong in that society. There’s no objective standard that can be used to judge one’s society code against another. Its arrogant to judge others cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. Cultural relativism for many people is a response to the complexity of moral issues and the number of different responses various. Groups our cultures have given to moral issues so for many when we look at just how different cultures have responded two different issues the way different cultures. All this diversity that there seems to be a response where we want to say well, maybe there isn 't some sort of absolute right or wrong maybe morality really is just relative to a different group that different people believe different things. In this paper, I will discuss the aspect of my culture from an outside perspective and discuss another culture from an inside perspective. In sociology, the principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias in research, as well as to avoid judging another culture by the standards of one 's own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is related to but often distinguished from moral relativism, the view that morality is relative to