Disagreeing with Cultural Relativism

If you think about it, the active, international interaction of the world’s various cultures is only a modern innovation. It was only a couple of centuries ago when there was no efficient mode of transportation or communication between cultures, and societies were secluded and made up of only natives. With the recent exponential growth of technological advancements, men have finally been given the power to influence different cultures. The way this power should be used has been extremely controversial, and in the last few centuries, not to mention decades and years, obvious errors have been made practicing it. The idea of Cultural Relativism, made clear by James Rachels, advocates that the proper thing to do with this newfound power is to not use it at all. Cultural Relativism is a theory asserting that there are no absolute truths of morals and therefore, a practice of a culture can not be judged as right or wrong. While its fundamentals may seem enlightened, radical practice of them prevents moral progress and the philosophy fails to acknowledge that immorality simply exists.
Cultural Relativism’s major claim to fame is that the philosophy, when put into practice, would preserve cultural diversity and prevent the extinction of valued traditions. While this may sound admirable in theory, accomplishing such a feat would prove detrimental because contrary to popular belief, extinction is actually a very good thing. Los Altos High School chemistry professor Darren
Dressen describes the vital phenomenon as simply inevitable. He says that despite the efforts of environmentalists who attempt to preserve endangered species, their doom is simply a result of not being fit enough to respond to the changes in their environment. In fact, the vast majority of all species that ever existed went extinct; it was only the extremely small minority that evolved sufficiently to adapt to the changes around them. Those who attempt to save an endangered species have