The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral judgment. Basically says that the values that every culture isn't necessarily wrong, just different. I almost completely disagree with this view. The largest problem I have with it rejects absolute truth and its existence. If one were to make the statement "there is no absolute truth," they would have just proven themselves wrong because that is a self-defeating statement.…
In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, in which he criticizes the normative cultural relativism argument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the cultural relativism argument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful…
Shaw gives an obvious and unconvincing example. He compares abortion in two different societies; it is absolutely wrong in Catholic Spain, but widely accepted in Japan. Most readers would agree that this occurs and abortion is a topic that the world will most likely never come to agreeing terms with. Therefore, relativism is actually significant in each culture. Cultural relativism is complicated in that a whole group of people within an area believe in what they've always been told. Shaw gives an excellent example about slavery in the south. Decades ago, it unfortunately existed and it was acceptable in that time period. However, now it is clearly immoral. A relativist would think that it is acceptable because it was part of the culture. It is not steady to keep changing morals through time. So, who distinguishes right from wrong in that whole society in the first place?…
Many people are lead to adopt Ethical Relativism because they believe that it justifies their view that one ought to be tolerant of the different behavior of people in other cultures. However, Ethical Relativism does not really justify tolerance at all. All around the world, there are different types of cultures, which have different ethical values that will be correct according to their cultures. Nevertheless, some people might argue about different cultures that have different moral codes that they can not accept; examples: polygamy and infanticide. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism proposes that we can stop the criticism and be more tolerant with other cultures. To illustrate, we could no longer say that custom of other societies…
Moral relativism is one’s perception of what is acknowledged to be morally just or unjust depending on accepted demeanor. Certain behaviors and manners that a specific culture may consider to be acceptable, another culture may consider to be unethical. In such an instance, neither one of the cultures would be incorrect. Morals are culturally defined in that it originates from the root as to what is considered socially acceptable.…
Cultural relativism can be defined as the understanding that the choices one can consider morally right are those approved of by one’s culture. Cultural differences in moral beliefs don’t imply cultural relativism because nonmoral beliefs can alter the perspective of basic moral principles shared by the culture. This would imply that there are no universally set/correct moral standards. Saying that cultural differences in moral beliefs imply cultural relativism is only part of an argument, not a conclusion supported by valid premises. There is the possibility that the moral issue in question is, in fact, an objective truth, in which case the culture is purely wrong. If cultural relativism exists, and no culture can ever be wrong in their moral…
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 this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse objective moral realism. Rachels defines this as “a standard that might be reasonably used in thinking about any social practice whatever. We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of people whose lives are affected by it.” That is the moral worth of an action is based upon how it contributes to the society from which it operates in.…
Moral Relativism is the thought that the moral beliefs held by individuals is influenced and dependent on the culture in which they live in considers tolerable. Hence, what is considered morally appropriate in a single society perhaps is perceived as immoral in a different society. In actuality they both maybe right as they have distinct creators resulting in different laws, diversity, and possibly religious views of each other. Ruth Benedict defends the theory of moral relativism in her article A Defense of Moral Relativism from The Journal of General Psychology. In contrast, William B. Irvine author of Confronting Relativism feels in a few swift examples people can be talked out of their views on moral…
Our text discusses the challenge relativism presents to various ethical and religious viewpoints. Consider a specific moral question which might make it difficult to accept the relativist's response. State the moral issue involved, and provide an explanation as to why you think a relativist might have problem giving a justified response to it.…
What one may believe is right and worthy in their own culture may seem taboo in another culture’s standards. This is because of the use of cultural relativism, which is the belief that something is good or wrong if and only if it is approved or disapproved in a given culture. Right and wrong values vary from society to society; therefore, there is no standard base to judge what is universally right or wrong between the different cultures. Because of this, societies may disagree about the morality of what is right and wrong. Gensler believes that if cultural relativism is true, then there are no right or wrong moral values within a culture’s belief, because objective truths can still exist.…
Cultural relativism is contradictory when it states that every culture should embrace a policy of tolerance towards other cultures. To begin with, cultural relativism states right and wrong differ from one cultural to another, it does not imply that other cultures have to tolerate that point of view. The fact of the matter is, one culture believes one idea and another may have another idea. These cultures are not going to change their point of view, or remotely agree with the other culture if their views are contradictory. Each culture has its own beliefs, there is no room for tolerance in true cultural relativism.…
- Cultural Relativism seems intuitively true, but be aware that disagreement does not entail that there is not a correct answer to moral questions (p. 26-27)…
Ethical relativism is the thesis that ethical principles or judgments are relative to the individual or culture. When stated so vaguely relativism is embraced by numerous lay persons and a sizeable contingent of philosophers. Other philosophers, however, find the thesis patently false, even wonder how anyone could seriously entertain it. Both factions are on to something, yet both miss something significant as well. Those who whole-heartedly embrace relativism note salient respects in which ethics is relative, yet erroneously infer that…
Relativism is the view that states that moral principles vary by culture (conventionalism) or by individuals (subjectivism). Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict argue that since different cultures hold different principles, one culture has no basis to judge another culture's morals. She uses the argument of normality: each culture defines what behavior is normal to fit the behavior of the majority. The majority of that population then defines normality and lives by it, and only a small minority deviates from that normality. According to Benedict morality is just term that we've come to use for socially approved habits, and normal is a variant of the concept of good. Subjectivism is the extreme end of relativism. This view holds that morality is determined at the individual level, not a social or universal level. Therefore, the only moral principles that are valid are the ones you believe in, and basically all principles are equally valid.…
The idea of right and wrong varies from culture to culture. The five tenets of cultural relativism going to depth defining moral codes. Complications and moral questions arise when one culture begins harming another—Nazi genocide, war, imperialism, etc. Geographic boundaries blur in our technologically advanced, globalized world. The most daunting logical challenge presented by cultural relativism is it hinders a society from judging the codes or values of another society and even our own (Lecture 1).…