Review Of “The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism”
Essay Preview: Review Of “The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism”
Report this essay
Introduction
In this article, the author explores the major meta-ethical theory of Cultural Relativism.
According to it, Cultural Relativism states that all morality is relative to culture, that
the truth of ethical claims is relative to an individual or groups perspective. Cultural
Relativism holds that an action is morally right or morally wrong because of the beliefs
and values of the culture in which the action takes place. Therefore cultural relativism
denies the possibility of any objective foundation for moral rules or obligations.
Comments
In the sections 2.1 and 2.2 The author defines what Cultural Relativism is all about by
giving us a glimpse of different cultural practices form more accepted funeral
cremation by Greeks to barbaric (to us) flesh eating practice of Callatians to going
against our institution of marriage Eskimo practices or polygamy and “wife swapping”.
The third section considers one argument in support of cultural relativism and then
offers objections to that argument.
She goes on setting up 6 claims of Cultural Relativism:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
With rules 4 and 5 more essential for Cultural Relativism definition then others. At this
point she doesnt say whether Cultural Relativism is a valuable theory or not, she
merely sets it up as an argument to be researched. In the section 2.3. she goes into
restating rules 4 and 5 from above section and dismantles its “plausible enough logic”
by trying to show that although the view itself may sound plausible enough, it is
actually incompatible with many other things that people commonly believe. She says
that Cultural Relativism argument turns to be fallacious and proves nothing.
The section 2.4 goes in to “attack mode” on taking Cultural Relativism seriously by
researching 3 of those consequences:
According to CR we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. So we could not say that 1940s Nazi wiping off Jews or 1970s racism in South Africa is morally wrong. Doesnt ring true, huh?
All advocates or social changes are wrong, according to 2nd CR rule, that one should determine wrong by consulting ones society norms. So according to it no one should have abolished slavery or racism. Another bad one!
If CR is true there is no reason for moral progress. Therefore women should still be “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. I can just see that one falling through!
So, the author successfully wins this argument, but in the section 2.5. goes on
researching that customs and norms result both from values, factual beliefs and
constrains of life forces in a given situation. Sometimes, a difference in norms can
appear to indicate a difference in values but actually reflects only a difference in factual
beliefs and situational context. So, if there is no apparent differences in moral values
the theory of Cultural Relativism is further corroded.
In section 2.6, the author points out that cultures cannot exist