Cultural Ethical Relativism

Cultural Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism is a theory based on the belief that there are no general standards that are
considered to be ethically acceptable. Ethical relativists believe that there is no actual standard of
what is right or wrong. The two forms of ethical relativism are personal, or individual ethical
relativism and cultural ethical relativism. Personal relativism, also called individual relativism, is
based on the belief that ethical opinions are manifested by the moral viewpoints of each individual.
Personal relativists believe that because there is no specific right or wrong, no specific opinion is
considered reasonable or unreasonable. Everybody has had their own experiences throughout their
lives, which has contributed to how their beliefs are formed. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Opinions are based on the beliefs of each individual culture. Individuals in each society should focus
on the rules and customs within their society in order to make the right decisions. Cultural ethical
relativists believe that one society's views and opinions are not better than any other, even if the
views are completely different in opinion. I do not believe that relativism would work as a universal
theory. Everybody has their own morals and beliefs. What one individual believes is right may be
completely different from what another individual might believe. Relativism may work as a
universal theory within certain cultures and societies but not likely among individuals. There are
certain cultures that share the same customs and beliefs but individuals from different cultures may
have completely different views of what is right or wrong. Supporters of ethical relativism believe
that there is no universal beliefs that
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Cultural Relativism in Business
Business And Islamic Ethics
Topic: Cultural Relativism In Business
Submitted to: Mr. Mehmood Ul Hassan Khalil
Submitted by: Waqas Shehzad
Class: BBA 5D
Cultural Relativism:
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative,
depending on the situation, environment, and individual. Those who hold to cultural relativism hold
that all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual
within a cultural identity. Cultural relativism (CR) says that good and bad are relative to culture.
What is "good" is what is "socially approved" in a given culture. Our moral principles describe
social conventions and must be based on the norms of our society. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This observation is supported by Nyaw and Ng (1994) who found that Hong Kong managers are
more tolerant of unethical behavior towards customers and suppliers than Canadian managers. At a
corporate level, deception of various forms has been observed among East Asians (Tung, 1994). For
instance, the Japanese speak with soft–spoken voices so that their American counterparts
underestimate their tenacity. In the process of gathering market intelligence, some East Asian firms
spread erroneous information to contaminate and frustrate competitors' strategies.
We must change the focus of business ethics away from primary emphasis on Western ethics toward
a deeper understanding of value systems that stem from different conceptions of human nature. We
need to abandon the project of universalizing ethics along Western lines.
Cultural Relativism and Business Options:
Given the concept of cultural relativism, business executives can take one of three choices:
(1) insist on uniform standards worldwide, or
(2) tailor or adjust the companys standards of conduct for each locale, or
(3) decide on each instance on a situation by situation basis.

The problem with insisting on common worldwide standards is that local customs in foreign cultures
may be trampled

The Theory Of Cultural Moral Relativism
Michael Atefi
Professor Walker
Phil–1020
29 September 2015
First Exam
1.) The theory of cultural moral relativism is based on the beliefs that it is arrogant to judge the
moral codes of other cultures and that people should be tolerant towards the practices of other
cultures (Rachels 19). By holding these beliefs, the theory implies that all cultures are equal and
should be treated as such. Cultural moral relativism is also based on the idea that there is no
universal truth in ethics (Rachels 18). If a certain standard exists in a society, that standard is right
(at least in that society). The only way that a person can be right is if they follow the moral codes of
the society that they are apart of (Rachels 22). Moral codes vary from culture to culture. Therefore,
the metaphysical assumptions and metaethical implications of cultural moral relativism are that
morality is relative and there is no such thing as objective moral facts. According to James Rachels,
there are three problematic consequences that result from adopting the theory of cultural moral
relativism. One of the problematic consequences that result from adopting the theory of cultural
moral relativism is that people would not be able to determine if the customs of other cultures are
morally inferior to the customs of their own culture. This is problematic because people are inclined
to criticize the customs of other cultures so that they can determine whether their practices are right
or wrong. By adopting

The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism By James Rachels
In "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", James Rachels presents six claims that have been made
by cultural relativists. One of the six claims that Rachels presents in section 2.2 of the article is that
different societies have different moral codes. I believe that Rachels thinks this claim is true. Section
2.1 of the article does a good job at explaining this idea. In this section, Rachels gives several
examples of the differences that can be found in moral codes of different people groups throughout
time. One of the specific examples he mentions is the different burial rituals of the Greeks and the
Callatians. The Greeks perform a ritual that includes burning the dead. The Callatian ritual consists
of eating the dead. The Greeks and Callatians, while encountering each other, both stated that the
other's ritual was inhumane. This disagreement, according to Cultural Relativism, is okay and to be
expected because the two moral codes come from two drastically different societies. A modern
example of this claim is that up until recently in China, small feet were praised and larger feet were
frowned upon for women. Radical efforts to prevent women's feet from growing included foot–
binding. This method of prevention caused women to constantly be in pain. Women's foot size in the
United States isn't emphasized like the way it used to be in China. Therefore, citizens of the United
States believe that Chinese foot–binding was a barbaric method, while people in China would think

Research Paper On Cultural Relativism
Title: Cultural Relativism
Name: Prerna Singh
Roll No.: 13110082
Word Count:
Cultural Relativism
To debate or argue on Cultural Relativism first we need to define what cultural relativism is.
Cultural relativism is a concept stating that any individual's views and beliefs should be understood
in terms of his own culture by everyone else. It denies the superiority of any culture over others on
any means. Different cultures have their own different moral codes and values. Those can be similar
or very different from other culture's moral code. Hence the concept of 'universally true' or
'universally right' is disregarded by this concept. It says that every culture's code is right in its place,
the truth is relative. For a cultural relativism supporter, the right thing to do for anyone will be the
one which is stated in the person's culture, no matter what he thinks is right or what the world says
about it. The great sociologist William Graham Sumner says that the right thing is what our
ancestors have been used and have handed us. The culture and tradition gives a warrant, it should or
need not to be put in question. He says that the notion of truth is inside a culture. Whatever is right
in a particular culture, it is right to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Even then, killing a child is always the last option; adoption is also willingly carried forward. This
point is emphasised here to say that just by looking with a bird's eye, we should not judge other's
culture. It appears from far that the difference in the values of different culture is very high, but
analysing it deeply can actually help us to respect different views considering the similarity in the
values and still encountering so many different beliefs. The Eskimos values are not that different
from

Using Hitler As An Example Of Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism and subjective relativism was pretty interesting to me, after reading this chapter I
sort of having a better understanding of why have arguments at times. As humans, we are stuck in
our ways and we think that our ways and actions are always right, but that is not always the case
other people might not see it the way we do. Being humans we have to understand that everyone has
their own way of learning, and reading this chapter gave me a new perspective on that. In my
opinion using Hitler as an example was not the best choice. I will never understand why people
Hitler thought that taking someone else life is the right thing to do, but who am I to disagree with
their way of thinking. Unfortunately, Hitler is not the only person

Cultural Relativism Analysis
Compare ethics in terms of various cultures, discussing moral relativism. All different cultures have
similar views on what makes their culture different from any other. They tend to all have sacred
stories and myths and close to all have a sense of realism in their ways.. In terms of specific
cultures, relativism is categorized as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the descriptive view
that different groups of people have different moral standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong
(Philosphophy302, 2001). To stretch on the subject of cultural relativism, it is known that different
cultural groups might and could have the same basic moral principle but apply the principle in a
different way.
Another term for relativism presiding in a cultural way would be moral relativism. According to
Robin Schumacher, moral relativism is a philosophy that asserts there is no global, absolute moral
law that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Also moral relativism made its way to the Chinese and the nonobjectivist view that they had was
also interpreted as certain relativism. The ways of then ancient Greek philosophers took on its own
roll and went over into a time known as Western philosophy. Also around this time moral diversity
became to take play. Nonetheless, the increased awareness of moral diversity (especially between
Western and non–Western cultures) on the part of Europeans in the modern era is an important
antecedent to the contemporary concern with moral relativism (Gowans, 2015). It is very interesting
to me how these certain moral standards roll from one culture to another, this in fact, shows how
much every culture is similar and that we should all be combined as one instead of having such
different outlooks on this life. If we did this maybe more groups would get along and not want to
fight or kill each other like they have for so long just because of different

Cultural Relativism Is Not Ideal
Cultural Relativism is not Ideal
In The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachel's main argument is that cultural relativism is
not creditable, but the whole theory of what cultural relativists believe, isn't completely incorrect.
Cultural relativism is the theory that beliefs, activities, and most values are based on the person's
culture. In other words, right and wrong is different in each culture. I agree with James Rachel on
his view of cultural relativism because he has very good reasons for objecting the argument that
cultural relativists make. This paper will argue that James Rachel's opinion on cultural relativism is
correct and the assumptions that cultural relativist believe are incorrect.
Cultural Relativists believe in the cultural differences argument. This argument says:
"1.Different cultures have different moral codes.
2.Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion
and opinions vary from culture to culture" (Rachel 21).
Rachel's considers the cultural differences argument for cultural relativism to be unsound. I agree
with her because it just is not logical for something to not have anything that is objectively true just
because people disagree on it. An example that stands out to me regards murder. If Society A agreed
on murder and society B disagreed on murder than the conclusion is not that there is no objective
truth on the matter. Murder is obviously wrong because if in a particular society

Criticism Of Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are
determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the
cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and
beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The
Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made
for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion
about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even
though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In our country, someone who likes to be helpful is considered a model citizen, whereas in his own
country he would be considered "abnormal" (Benedict p.2). Benedict used this example.to argue that
like behavior, morality is culturally determined and that what can be morally right for one society
can be considered morally wrong for another (Newton, Evaluating Cultural Relativism).
Where Ruth Benedict believed morality is relative, James Rachels disagrees. This is where I would
have to agree with James Rachels criticisms regarding the Cultural Difference Argument. The
premise argues that different cultures have different moral codes. The conclusion argues that there is
no "objective" truth in morality and "right" and "wrong" are only matters of opinion, and opinions
vary from culture to culture. Cultural relativists argue from facts about different cultural outlooks to
the conclusion about the status of morality. Rachels uses the shape of the earth as an example. In
some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. In others, people believe it is spherical. If using the
Cultural Difference Argument, our premise would be that societies disagree about the shape of the
earth. We would then conclude there is no fact of the matter about the shape of the earth (Rachels
p.20–21).
This is not a logical argument because belief does not instantly imply truth. The premise of an
argument is

Cultural Relativism
This paper will summarize and critique the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism as an
ethical theory. One of the problems I find with cultural relativism is in determining which actions
are good and which are bad. This is impossible because every person and culture, has a disagreeing
opinion on good and bad. There isn't one individual who can decide which morals are right and
which are wrong.
Cultural relativism states that correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies (p. 293).
Cultural relativism states that an action is morally acceptable because it is allowed by the guiding
ideals of society in which it is performed, and immoral because it is forbidden by those ideals (p.
293).
Some of the strengths of culture ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Acts are right because they are supported by excellent reasons and not because individuals or groups
happen to favor one act over another (p. 306). I disagree that moral truths are defined by groups of
people or by a certain society and just because they believe and approve of actions, then those
actions are morally correct. If culture relativism is correct, then the Holocaust was a good thing
according to the Nazi society. If we are to be non–judgmental about another culture's beliefs and
practices, then we need to turn a blind eye to horrific crimes like the Holocaust, chemical attacks,
human trafficking and other vile and repulsive beliefs of other cultures. If I say the Holocaust was
wrong, but a German friend of mine argues with me that it was right, then one of us must be wrong.
We cannot both be right, something cannot be both good and evil at the same time. The biggest
problem with cultural relativism for me, is in determining which actions are good and which are bad
based on who you are and what society you belong

Negative Aspects Of Cultural Relativism
Whether we choose to actively acknowledge it or not, Cultural Relativism plays an integral role in
our everyday lives. Cultural Relativism is a theory that is based on the fact that society dictates what
is morally wrong or right. However, just because society approves of certain actions, does not mean
that the actions are morally right. Societies as a whole can and will have mishaps from time to time.
In addition to this, Cultural Relativists do not believe in progress; these individuals presume that
circumstances change. Cultural Relativists also adhere to the core belief that everyone's ideas are
morally equivalent. Though this ideology is the preferred choice of a majority of philosophers, there
is a multitude of flaws that challenge the crux of what we know as Cultural Relativism. In this
paper, I will present two problematic aspects of Cultural Relativism. From there I will then present
their counter–arguments, and evaluate the Cultural Relativists response to these criticisms.
For many years the United States was a hostile environment for a vast majority of African
Americans living in certain areas. These individuals were considered less than human and were
segregated and stripped of basically all of their socio–economic rights. According to Cultural
relativists this constant degradation and denial of basic human rights were considered right; since
society deemed it morally right then it must have been morally right. But as I mentioned earlier
societies as a whole can have misguided views. The horrible injustices that these individuals faced
were objectively wrong. This constant mistreatment created a constant tension between citizens of
the United States. It also polarized the nation– one side was all for the marginalization of the African
American people and the other side supported African Americans fighting for their rights. This sort
of belief that was considered morally right, was in fact quite debilitating for the United States. When
faced with such an issue, a cultural relativist would argue this point by saying along the lines of this:
individuals who were on the outside looking in have no idea what the American Culture of this time
period was; if you are not an active participant in this

Cultural Relativism And The Moral Code Of Society Essay
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

Objectivism And Cultural Relativism
1. a) Objectivism teaches that some morals will have a universal meaning essentially which is a
good point if it were not for social and cultural differences. One religious authority may believe that
ritual sacrifice is essential to the after life while another religious authority may believe killing of
any kind is a crime. Objectivism tries to validate everyone's morals which is a strength but fails to
consider moral view's can differ drastically such is the case in the ritual sacrifice. (P.22)
Cultural Relativism implies that culture decides what is moral or immoral. This belief defines in
some ways a boundary to morals where objectivism failed. Several religions homosexuals are
considered immoral and are judge according to the belief ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Individuals make their own morals can work except if a man takes a life based on the fact he does
not like them. Subjective relativism strength is that it listens to an individuals moral choice but fails
to acknowledge that not everyone will make the correct moral choice. (P.23–24)
Emotivism communicates that emotions are the highest authority on morals rather than
acknowledging logic. An angry nurse may shove a needle in a patients are on a bad day without
stopping to think about the patients pain emotions without logic can inflict harm. Emotions are
never a perfect science and can change radically from one instance to another. Emotivism has
strength in that it listens to emotions but emotions are often wrong when logic is taken away. (P.23)
b) I feel I relate best to cultural relativism. I was born into a Christian family and as such the bible is
my moral guide to life. I attempt to follow the laws of Christianity as I was raised into it similarly as
I follow the laws of the United States. I believe cultural relativism is very much for a passive person
who prefers to go with the flow of the majority which is who I

Cultural Relativism And Morals And Codes
Philosophy has many different topics that are debatable and have been argued throughout its long
history. Cultural relativism is a very interesting and controversial topic in the philosophical/
religious world. To further understand cultural relativism one must first learn the definition. Cultural
relativism is the view that Different cultures have different moral codes and values, therefore culture
is subjective and arbitrary. When given a closer look at cultural relativism we come to the
conclusion that it is not as plausible as it first appears and that certain moral values are needed in
creating a sustainable and thriving society (57).In This paper I will begin with a short analyst briefly
stating the beliefs of a cultural relativist, explaining their values and examining their views on
cultural morals and codes. Then moving on to analyzing the Argument of cultural differences which
discusses the view that there is no universal "right" or "wrong" when examining cultures moral
views; a cultures morals and values are simply a matter of opinion. Lastly I will confirm that every
culture has a diminutive amount moral views and values. As we observe cultural relativism a
relativist of this theory would assume the claim that all moral rules and values are only relative to
culture; the views of a culture are subjective and arbitrary. Meaning there is no real universal
standard when examining another cultures views and morals every standard is dependent on a
cultures own

Argument Of Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe
as "good" and "bad" is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is
better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made
it possible for almost everything to be justified.
Three arguments that are against objective values were found on The Ethical Life by Russ Shafer–
Landau (P. 205) textbook that identify two problems with the cultural relativist's argument are:
1. Morality is a product of culture,
2. Cultures disagree widely about morality, and
3. There's no clear way to resolve moral differences
These arguments were made by fictional Ima Relativist created by Harry Gensler. Ima Relativist
believes that morality is about objective facts. There is more to these arguments that once they are
well analyzed they are read differently with another meaning to them. These arguments are against
objective values. "Since morality is a product of culture, there can't be objective moral truths"
(Shafer–Landau, P. 205). The problem with this quote is that what a culture produces can express
truths about how people live. Everything we say and do is based off our culture and what we were
taught to do, yet some express objective truths.
"Since cultures disagree widely about morality, there can't be objective moral truths" (Shafer–
Landau, P. 205). Just because there is some kind of

Cultural Relativism : Culture And Culture
Nowadays, we live in a fast changing world society, in which it is making people of different
cultures interact closely to each other. This contact may be a good one or a bad one. It all depends
on how open mind we are and how respectful we are with the different cultures. As curious persons,
almost everyone wants to know about others cultures, which are its tradition, religion, costume, and
how that culture works. However, people make judgment about the things they may think are
wrong, disgusting, or even inhuman from other cultures. Because they think that their culture is
better than the other ones. Cultural relativism explains to us why it does not exist a major culture we
should follow or think it is the best one.
The theory of cultural relativism explains that there is not a universal right or wrong because
morality differs culture by culture. Politics, religions, traditions, laws, foods, and cloths–are just
some things in which every culture has in differences. Cultural relativism says, that not matters how
much someone agrees or disagrees in any of those, there is not a superior culture. Whatever the
majority of that society says is right, it is, and whatever the majority of that society say is wrong, it
is. For example, if I were born in China or India, it would be normal and even right for me to see
female infanticide. In spite of the fact that morality differs and depends on each culture, I would not
be allowed to make a judgment against this practice because I am

Cultural Relativism Is Important For Many Reasons
Cultural Relativism is defined as, "The principle that an individual 's beliefs and activities should be
understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture". Wilson talked about this term
extensively in his class and he noticed a common trend within his classroom. The trend was that his
students warned him, "Not to be 'judgmental ' or to 'impose your values on other people."(Soccio
2007). This is a common trend found with a lot of people in my opinion. In fact, I have the same
belief as many of Wilson's students. Cultural relativism is important for many reasons. First, having
a sense of cultural relativism provides people with a form of tolerance towards other cultures.
Second, it helps people understand acts or actions ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When these two cultures were told any other way of disposing of their dead, they were completely
shocked and almost disgusted (Rachels 2015). This helps support the fact that different cultures have
different practices and therefore different moral codes. Furthermore, if different cultures have
different moral codes and practices that are based on their own personal culture, another culture
should not be able to judge them, simply because they are unique to that culture. Tolerance is
another good quality that comes with cultural relativism. Tolerance helps us have a sort of
explanation on why other cultures act the way they do. It gives the reason of an action or act being
based on one's culture rather than because of the type of individual that they are. Take a cultural
group such as the Eskimos. The Eskimos believe in and practice infanticide throughout their villages
(Rachels 2015). This practice is considered highly wrong in American cultures, but is considered
morally acceptable in cultures like the Eskimo (Rachels 2015). What a lot of people forget to take
into account is the reason the Eskimos perform infanticide. It is not because they are cruel people,
no, it is because they are thinking about the possible future life of the child and the future life of
their village. Another baby is simply another mouth to feed, a task which can be difficult for some
Eskimo families. Therefore, in order to prevent a bad life for the baby

Difference Between Cultural Relativism And Absolutism
Cultures vary in behavior, habits, attitudes, beliefs, languages, etc. Absolutism is regarded by
everyone and is not limited by anything. Relativism is regarded by everyone in the same manner
such that it is not limited by people, situations, time, or location. There are distinct anthropological
facts that support both cultural relativism and absolutism with respect to moral principles.
Moral principles within cultural relativism do vary and any given culture believe theirs is the true
moral value. Three anthropological facts outlined by relativism are as follows.
1. In relation to customs, manners, taboos, religions, moralities, habits, and attitudes there is a large
deviation between cultures.
2. Moral beliefs and attitudes within any ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Citizens of a given culture believe that the moralities that they uphold and live by are the only true
morals.
Problems that may arise from relativism may occur when a particular cultures tries to enforce their
beliefs, values or laws onto another society or culture and condemn that culture for not adhering to
their moral values and punishing by engaging in terroristic threats or warfare. Further, a tradition
may be considered right or wrong in one culture but the opposite in another, since there is no
superior authority we cannot say whether any given tradition is indeed right or wrong.
Moral principles within cultural absolutism do not vary and all cultures follow the same moral
values. Four anthropological facts outlined by absolutism are as follows.
1. Principles of what is right and wrong are consistent across all cultures, including but not limited
to preservation of human life, honesty, respect for elders, sexual conduct, taking responsibility for
personal actions.
2. The needs of citizens are similar across all cultures; consumption of food and clean water, shelter,
sexual management.
3. Relationships, habits, situations are similar in all cultures including opposite gender, preferences
dealing with religion, family, language, and performance

Cultural Relativism In America
Cultural relativism –"the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from
the viewpoint of that culture itself". Cultural Relativism relies on the hypothesis that ethical
frameworks, which diﬀer throughout the world, are all plausible in their own individual right .If you
buy into the thought of cultural relativism, one tends to suspend judgment of other societies
controversial rituals and practices. Thus to 'completely accept" all customs must blur our perception
of right and wrong. I will explore cultural relativism alongside the morality behind the gun control
laws in the United States of America (USA), in conjunction with the concept of arranged marriage
specific to India, and ultimately come to a clear conclusion ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However, it has been custom in parts of India for centuries. Arranged marriages are the process of a
third party, usually family, selecting a suitable partner to partake in marriage. Naturally uncommon
and "bizarre" to anyone from a western society. Nevertheless when looking at empirical studies it
does sway my western bias. One study compared American and Indian arranged marriages. The
conclusions were at first American couples were a lot happier. In this case the concept of free will is
the issue. To accept this practice does not sway judgments upon right and wrong to a point. However
the fact that the marriage is "arranged" not chosen questions the concept of free will. In turn this
scenario disagrees with the statement to some

The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism By James Rachels
Throughout his essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, "James Rachels describes cultural
relativism, the concept that all cultures have different moral codes and that there is no true moral
code, and he also provides six claims that are related to cultural relativism, in which some of these
he believes are true and the rest false. One of the main objections Rachel's makes is against the
claim of cultural relativism that states that right and wrong come directly from culture. In Rachels
eyes this statement means that in order for something to be morally right, it only has to fit within the
culture's own moral code. For example, if a mother and father are to kill their newborn baby because
they wanted a girl and got a boy instead and their culture's moral code does not condemn this action,
then the parents are morally correct. For the family, this means that they are not to be held morally
responsible since the moral code of their culture says that the action is right. With this Rachels also
would say that since morals are directly related to certain cultures and there is not one true moral
code. Therefore, no culture has a special status and should not be able to condemn another culture's
values or even their own. We should simply adopt an attitude of patience towards practices of other
cultures, for there is no room to question cultures moral beliefs. Rachels criticizes the claim of
cultural relativism by providing us with a list of consequences: We could no longer

What Is Cultural Relativism
1. Cultural relativism relies on social ideals to dictate whether or not something is morally right or
wrong while ethical subjectivism that truth moral standard are dictated by each individual. These
forms of moral skepticism are completely inconsistent with ethical objectivism since it views moral
as something completely untouched by any beliefs, desires, and will.
3. Ethical subjectivism makes us morally infallible by making morality "in the eye of the beholder,"
which pretty much would lead us to believe that every individual is morally right. But this is simply
cannot be true since that would mean that an individual's thinking could be based off bias, prejudice,
ignorance, etc. and still not be mistaken.
5. Some would say that ethical subjectivism would generate contradictions and they would be
correct. Two individuals could agree and disagree respectively on whether or not New Jersey is on
the east coast, but then those theories would be inconsistent and contradict each other. But luckily
for the subjectivist, they found the perfect comeback for this critique, making it morally impossible
to disagree with anyone in the process. A subjectivist can say that they personally do ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are two types of moral nihilism: error theory and expressivism. Error theory is the theory
where our moral judgement are wrong, that they're pretty much a sham. This theory could be
compared to atheism in a manner, especially since atheists and error theorist go against widely
viewed ideals (a.e. God and moral respectively). Expressivism might seem similar to error theory,
but they differ in a large way. They do not believe that any moral are true or false or have any moral
value whatsoever. Expressivists also believe that while moral judgement might look like they are
moral facts, but really those judgements are just us expressing emotions, showing our approval or
disapproval in something. But in the end, both error theory and expressivism both believe morals to
be a

Cultural Relativism Analysis
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. The scenario states that a colleague ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After all relevant information is given to make an informed decision, the patients can accept, deny,
or change any offer of healthcare. From Queensland Health's Guide to Informed Decision–making
in Healthcare, "no healthcare...is provided without the informed agreement of an adult patient who
has the capacity to make decisions" (2). It is commonly understood that if the patient is underage,
the patient's legal guardian will make the decision. In this particular scenario, the family is from a
particular culture that thought it is morally wrong to be injected with medication. If after I have
provided all the relevant information for them to make an informed decision, I would respect that
decision to deny the vaccination, including the parents' decision for their

Cultural Relativism Used To Oppress Women
Cultural Relativism is the idea that "right" and "wrong" are only specific to a culture and because of
this it can be extremely oppressive to women. Accepting the rules and laws that are used to oppress
women because of the belief in cultural relativism is not just harmful to women but can also be
dangerous. Cultural Relativism, in its most common definition can be quite alluring, because it
seems it teach us that we must be tolerant of other cultures, it most cases that is a good thing, but it
the cases of rights of women it is downright inhuman. Cultural Relativism is a flawed concept,
because it is assumed that there is no set of universal moral standards, so we should just accept
things like genital mutilation and arranged marriage that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Cultural relativism cast a shadow on the issues that effects women. Cultural relativism does not
allow us to have an open discussion about how we can help women in oppressed societies. Women
are most likely to be harm by this flawed philosophy because it does not take in account that women
rarely get to speak on behalf of themselves. As you look over the arguments against cultural
relativism we see that is has little to do with tolerance, the way we treat each other, and more to do
what a person believes to be true and these are two different sides of the coin. Tolerance is what we
want everyone to have because it teaches us how we should treat one another. Beliefs can be flawed
and because of this it allow bad things to happen. Cultural Relativism is all about beliefs and not
how we should treat our fellow man and that is why it is so dangerous and harmful to

Cons Of Cultural Relativism
I. Description
Cultural relativism is the concept that morality is based upon culture, "[...] there are sometimes
differing moral standards and practices in various cultures" (Hollinger, 2002, Kindle Locations 212–
218). Morals are not universal, practices are accepted or rejected by the individual culture and
change as the culture changes.
II. Critique
A. Pros of Cultural Relativism
1. Cultural relativism gives one a license to believe what they desire. They find a culture that suits
their desires. Where they can remain unaffected by beliefs of the outside world.
2. As relative, by its very nature, implies flexibility people are drawn to formulate values from the
flexibility. 3. A culture's truth is their own, thereby creating their ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Cons of Cultural Relativism
1. Numerous value systems muddy the water and eventually dilutes morality as a whole. This
approach prevents the internal dimension of our personal relationship with God. Our outward
expression of the inward spirituality, the external dimension, is unattainable as we are not able to
have a personal relationship with God without his moral system.
2. Morality assessments are typically based on a personal value system leaving little room for
cultural diversity. The internal dimension is to be free of judgment and the external dimension is to
love one another. If so, this requires cultures to be tolerant of all other cultures.
3. Relativism rejects universal morals. It does not acknowledge the basic principle of the external
dimension, practiced morals from a Godly value system. That Godly value system can only come
from the internal dimension.
4. A cultural moral system is accepted by those within their own culture. The culture does not
concern itself with outside acceptance. Weakness in both the internal and external Christian
framework is prevalent in this mindset. The culture models behavior without concern of
consequences. This is opposite of what God modeled to mankind and what the Bible

Cultural Relativism In The Euthyphro
Cultural relativism is the attitude that an individual's principles and customs should not be judged by
others in terms that every individual has different backgrounds and beliefs. No culture is superior to
any other culture as they all have different laws, or morals which they believe to be right or wrong.
Everyone should be equal based on their race, gender, religion, and values. All cultures are adapted
to what is right or wrong/good or bad based on their society and what they're taught growing up.
This varies from places and time frames. In a society at one time, something could be right, but in
that same society at a different time frame it could be wrong. All these beliefs are based on an
individual within their social order. What one culture finds moral, is something that a different
community may find immoral, but it is not right to judge either of them, for this was based on where
and how they were raised and what they've developed to support. The way people eat, work, or even
speak is all based on their humanity. There is no universal standard of morality
Ruth Benedict was a cultural anthropologist born in the 19th century. She feels that it is very
important to study a primitive culture's individual traits ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Euthyphro is prosecuting his father for the death of another and Socrates asks him why this is so as
he is being impious. He then asks Euthyphro to define piety. Euthyphro states that "piety is doing as
I am doing." Socrates tells him that is not a definition and asks him to define piety again. Euthyphro
then says it is "that which is dear to the gods." Socrates does not accept that either and explains that
gods can disagree. Finally Euthyphro says, "What all the gods love is pious and holy" and then
Socrates retorts by saying "the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy
because it is beloved of the

Cultural Relativism In America
Cultural relativism is the idea that morality is about objective facts, and different communities have
different morals. Just because they may be different than other communities, it doesn't mean they are
wrong. Gensler points out several problems with this idea, the biggest one being that it forces us to
conform to society. Gensler uses an example with a figure skater named Lika Rebel who is from a
Nazi country. Even though the majority of the society believes that putting Jews in concentration
camps is okay, she disagrees. If you were to apply cultural relativism, Lika wouldn't be able to think
otherwise because it is what her society approves of and is believed to be good. Many of the
changes our country has made over the years is due to

Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism stems from the concept that numerous cultures possess individualistic and
varying moral codes. In this paper, I will argue that cultural relativism is deemed as invalid. In
respect to my argument, I will discuss its invalidity due to four varying concepts: non–excusable and
excusable actions, morality of individuals, chaos, and the fact that not forming a judgement is still a
judgement.
The first point that reinforces the idea that cultural relativism is invalid pertains to the idea that some
actions in society are completely unacceptable. These actions can range from stealing products, and
can escalate into enacting violence or perhaps committing murder. One of the most prominent
genocides in history pertains to the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, cultural relativism is invalid since it allows abhorrent and heinous acts, which should be
unacceptable in any culture.
The second point that proves cultural relativism is invalid is in regards to the overall morality of the
individual. In other words, through cultural relativism, it is practically impossible to ascertain what
is considered good or bad in a specific society. This is because the idea of good and bad is inherent
through the culture itself, but not to the entirety of society. Cultural relativism is indoctrinated
through the teachings and understandings from friends, family, and other peers who share and
revolve around the same culture. This includes the ideas that are valued through the culture, but does
not necessarily have to dictate whether the specific culture addresses certain basic moral beliefs. For
example, if the culture condones certain acts of violence, or permits stealing, the culture does not
follow a basic moral code that distinguishes between what is considered morally good and what is
morally wrong. This deficiency in moral guidelines and structure can create dire consequences to
certain individuals, such as life imprisonment. For example, Ted Bundy, a notorious serial killer, did
not have a moral compass and believed that the urge to kill was compulsive, necessary and not
wrong. He stated that "I

Cultural Relativism And Its Impact On The World
Cultural relativism is the idea that all cultures are equal and no one is better than another. This way
of thinking was created and elaborated on by three main philosophers. Franz Boas, Alain Locke and
Robert Lowie were nineteenth century philosophers who shaped the ideas on concepts of Cultural
Relativism. These three men focused on the idea that one cannot judge other cultures because they
only see through eyes that have been influenced by their surroundings. They used relativist ideas
that existed already and expressed them on the world and the many different cultures that exist in it.
They created a mainly atheistic viewpoint in which the idea of a central moral truth and a higher
power was discounted. Only the people within a culture could create moral codes and laws for
themselves. Franz Boas was born on July 19, 1858 in Minden, Germany. Boas grew up in a well
educated family and was encouraged to follow his own beliefs and think for himself. From a very
young age, Franz Boas was interested in natural history and studied it throughout his years of
schooling. He continued his studies and graduated with a degree in physics, even though he
considered himself more of a geographer than a physicist. This interest in geography is what drove
him to delve deeper into the ideas of cultural difference and led to the beginnings of cultural
relativism. Through his studies, Franz Boas became drawn to anthropology, the study of humankind.
He became interested in

Cultural Relativism
James Rachels essay titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism is more of a critique over what
philosophers call Cultural Relativism. A theory in which states that there is no real sense of morality
and that it is one's own culture that makes up their own morality. A lot of people tend to reason
things in the way that Cultural Relativists might, by saying things such as "Oh, well it's what that
culture does. It's okay that they're doing that" however, sometimes people think the opposite "No, it
doesn't matter. It is just wrong" depending on the case. That's the thing with Cultural Relativism,
making things appear to be either helpful for some and harmful to others. And so, what Rachels
ultimately states in his argument that although ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These are practices that are necessary in order for a society to continue thriving generation after
generation.
"Different cultures have different moral codes." (Benedict, 18) What people find right or wrong lies
in the matter of opinion, which can vary depending on the type of culture they take a part of. This is
the first of the five main claims Rachels mentions in his essay that take a part of Cultural
Relativism. Which, by itself, is painfully obvious, it only takes a moment of learning about different
cultures to know this. But it is when the second claim; "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 (Rachels, 16)" comes into place that brings up
the cultural differences argument. There are a lot of differences when it comes to moral cultures, this
can be seen from something as little as the mannerisms of the individuals to something as extreme
as life and death as Rachels mentioned with the example of the Eskimos. With those differences in
mind, there come different claims of morality depending on when and where the person is from.
And thus, morality becomes relative in regards to the cultural norms. And Rachels demonstrates an
argument against this, yes, there are differences amongst cultures, but it doesn't imply any difference
when it comes to the truth. Such as

Cultural Relativism: It's Wrong To Jeopardize A Culture
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. Consider the following argument which is given
in support of Cultural Relativism:
Premise (1): Unless most members of a culture act, most of the time, in conformity with the culture's
moral code, the culture itself will be jeopardized.
Premise (2): It's wrong to jeopardize a culture.
Conclusion: Cultural Relativism is true.
In this paper, I will argue that the above argument is fallacious solely because Premise 2 begs the
question.
An argument begs the question or is circular if its conclusion ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The argument is using what it's trying to prove (Cultural Relativism) as part of the proof of that
thing (it's wrong to jeopardize a culture). In other words, the argument is trying to tell us that X is
true because X is true. But it has yet to tell us why it's true.
It's not reasonable to believe premise 2, or premise 2 is an unacceptable premise because it begs the
question (it's circular). A person would give this argument to an audience that doesn't already accept
Cultural Relativism. Remember that the main use of arguments is to convince people of things they
don't already believe. Premise 2 presupposes the truth of the conclusion itself. A person who does
not accept Cultural Relativism will not accept that "it's wrong to jeopardize a culture."
This doesn't mean that premise 2 is false. Let's suppose for the sake of this argument that the
premise is true. There is no point in presenting this argument to an audience that already accepts
Cultural Relativism. It wouldn't be reasonable for that audience to accept premise 2 without some
compelling argument. Who's to say that "it's wrong to jeopardize a culture" other than Cultural
Relativists themselves. People who don't accept Cultural Relativism should not accept premise 2
because it's part of what Cultural Relativism means. To clarify this let us consider a different
argument, for

Cultural Litivism Vs. Ethical Relativism
The topic of my paper is Cultural Relativism vs. Ethical Relativism.
The purpose of this paper is to justify the intervening in another country because of cultural
practices we believe are unethical. Relativism is actually the concept, which tells that when it comes
to a viewpoint there is no complete or impartial truth. Rather, the truth contains subjectivity, which
is related to specific perceiving behavior. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism both are the
philosophies that are connected to relativism in some way or other. In order to make the difference
between cultural relativism and ethical relativism, it is important to understand the word ethics that
defines the whole morality study. Ethics is basically the branch of philosophy that tries to interpret
those things and actions, which seem morally right and are universally acceptable. Ethics is
basically the criteria, which we set about what is right for other people and also for the society as
well. The principles of ethics are usually derived from cultural, philosophical and religious values.
Decisions about what is ethically right or wrong have altered over time to time. Ethics also permits
the examination of moral standards within a society, permitting questions to whether they are
reasonable or unreasonable. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Cultural relativism also based on the concept that believes and values in one culture may consider as
immoral while in another culture they may seem as moral. Fundamentally, the cultural relativism is
the opinion that morality and ethics are culture dependent. There is huge diversity found between
what is right or wrong among different cultural activities which ultimately originated the cultural
relativism concept around the whole world. This term is widely accepted by all

Essay on The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral...
Ruth Villagra
The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism. 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. In Elements of Moral Philosophy, the
author gives examples of such. For instance, a tribe of Indians known as Callatians ate bodies of
their dead fathers; the Greeks turned to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
" (Rachels, 20) Premises are supposed to support or provide evidence for the conclusion. To
summarize, he believes that there is not one objective truth or a correct way to dispose of the bodies
because although the culture's actions are different, their beliefs have a common value to it. It is
possible that the Callatians believed that through cannibalization, the spirits of their dead fathers
would be within them and by cremating or burying their bodies it would be viewed as a sign of
disrespect. ( Rachels, 30) If we were to look at the Eskimos example, Rachels argues that even if in
our society infanticide is seen as cruel and an immoral behavior, it is actually quite logical because
they are a nomadic tribe constantly traveling and rely on the males to hunt and provide for the
family– the disadvantage would be having an overpopulation of females. He argues that cultural
relativism supports this belief because moral ethics is just based on different cultures– "different
cultures have different moral codes." There's a difference in opinion which means that you can't
judge the other and that there isn't just one truth of which is right and wrong. However, Rachels also
provides a different example that is actually a logical flaw that attributes to the Cultural Differences
Argument. Some people believe that the earth is flat and others believe it's round. He argues that
because of cultural relativism,

Cultural Relativism And Diversity
According to society's knowledge, many can come to an agreement that cultural relativism and
diversity can play a huge effect on whether different cultures and traditions share the same respect
for morals and values towards each other. However, these two things can be considered as two
widespread theories that are used to explain the differences amongst different varieties of cultures,
their ethics, and their morals. Between the two theories, both characterize the moral, ethical, and
societal differences that diverse cultures experience. From recalling the discussion of whether
everything is relative cultural, relativism is defined as to the aspect of all beliefs, customs, and ethics
being relative as to the individual within his/her own social ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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

Cultural Relativism And Racial Relativism Essay
Question 1
Cultural Relativism is a theory arguing that each different society follows a different moral code that
is created by the majority and that is completely right and acceptable. A moral code is right, not
because of any moral reason, but because a specific culture says it is. It is important to understand
that Cultural Relativists believe that each group has the right moral code for themselves, even if
there are contradictory moral codes in different societies. In James Rachels' article on Cultural
Relativism, he argues against the idea of Cultural Relativism and says that Cultural Relativism is not
valid because, with a Cultural Relativist worldview, people can decide whether their actions are
right or wrong by looking simply at what society holds to be true. Rachels' finds fault in mindset. A
culture can easily have the wrong moral code on a certain topic. Rachels' uses an example from
South Africa's belief in racial segregation. South Africa's moral code was clearly incorrect, but
according to Cultural Relativism, apartheid is the morally good choice, only for the South African
society. How can something so wrong be right for only certain societies? Rachels' argues that this is
a huge reason why believing in Cultural Relativism is not the best decision. Additionally, Cultural
Relativists are unable to call another group 's moral code wrong, even if it is wrong. Plus, believing
in Cultural Relativism leaves no room for improvement, because people are unable to

Examples Of Cultural Relativism In Belize
Cultural Relativism in Belize
In Belize Cultural Relativism, Is a term used to describe when one culture compares their beliefs,
moral views or norms with another culture; which makes right and wrong different in every society.
Here in Belize this those exist because we experience it in our everyday life. The theory of Cultural
Relativism has different principles that govern how it is applied in society. The first being,
"Different societies have different moral codes, secondly, There is no objective standard that can be
used to judge one society's code better than another, thirdly, The moral code of our society has no
special status; it is merely one among many, fourthly, The moral code of a society determines what
is right within that society; ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"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",
meaning if a certain belief in a culture is being practice, in that one's society the practice is right, For
Example in the Garifuna Belizeans, they uphold their traditional beliefs and practices such as the
"dugu" ritual, through which they honored their ancestors and carry on their distinctive cultural
identity. In this case they are one culture who believe in their practices.
Lastly, "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", In other words we should be able to
respect the moral views of other cultures. Cultural relativism relies on the principle that moral codes
vary from culture to culture. For example, mingling with other types of cultures who practices
different belief, in Belize the main cultures are the Creoles, Mestizos, Garifunas & the Mayas. Each
have different cultural values and different ways of viewing

Normative Cultural Relativism. Relativism Is The...
Normative 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.
Normative cultural relativism is a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The date of the tragedy would probably be made a day of mourning where we all look back and
remember such horrible actions. Now say that the country you visited has a basic principle, making
it perfectly legal to kill children in public parks, we as people would object because murdering is
immoral but Normative Cultural Relativism says otherwise. We do not have a right to judge that
man because the society he is part of states that it is perfectly fine to shoot up public parks as long as
you only kill children. A more realistic example would be Nazi Germany and Jews. We remember
the Holocaust as a worldwide tragedy and describe Hitler as one of the worst human beings of all
time. This all erases with NCR. Hitler is good because he is acting accordingly the way society is
based upon which is exterminating all Jewish people. He states that at the heart of NCR there is a
certain form of argument. "The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the
differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality" (Rachels, 454).
By these standards we are made to believe, for example, that the Earth is flat is neither objectively
right nor objectively wrong because the Round and Flat–earthers had a disagreement. He calls this
kind of argument a Cultural Differences Argument, where there is no objective truth in what is
wrong

Cultural Relativism Vs Divine Command Theory
The biggest difference between Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory is that Divine
Command Theory believes that rightness and morality is defined by and from God, Cultural
Relativism believes that rightness and morality is defined by cultures themselves.
Cultural Relativism is the idea that what is right and what is wrong depends on what culture you live
in. James Rachels in The Elements of Moral Philosophy used an example of Ancient Greeks and the
Callatians and their disposal of the dead. The Greeks believed that the most respectful way to honor
the dead is to cremate the body; the Callatians thought differently, they believe that the most
respectful way to honor the dead as to eat the body of the dead so that the family would

Social Contract Theory and Cultural Relativism Essay
Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory is minimally related to that of cultural relativism. Both deal
with human nature and the search for peace. But while cultural relativism is in some ways a
noteworthy theory, the social contract theory is the only one of the two that could logically work in
an active environment. Cultural relativism theorizes that the best way for different societies to
function together at peace is for them to recognize that each culture must be allowed its own system
of beliefs. One individual may believe that his or her culture's belief system is the one true way. Is
there any way to absolutely prove that that person's morals are not correct? Not in the cultural
relativist view. Cultural relativism states ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, we can state, as James Rachels does on page 24, "there is no objective 'truth' in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture." Since no
differing beliefs may be considered right and wrong, the only solution is to let cultural relativism
take effect. Any rational people understanding this theory will realize that their beliefs are
considered to be true merely because it is their own culture's beliefs. Others' views must be held just
as high as their own even though the two are not in agreement. Ideally, cultural relativism could
allow this kind of understanding recognition between societies to develop and bring about coexistent
peace.
In reality, however, this can never be achieved to its supposedly full potential. This view of cultural
relativism would theoretically work if everyone would cooperate like this. Sure, it sounds
wonderful: two different cultures can put aside their differences and live in peace and balance
together to make the world a better place where everybody gets along and will live happily ever
after. But – here is where the nasty part comes in – humans are apt to disagreements no matter what.
Of course, many would adhere to culturally relativistic beliefs if this theory were somehow globally
instated, but there are too many trivial issues in the theory that would still be left open for more
argument. It does not follow, "from the mere fact that people disagree" (Rachels 24),

Relativism: Absolute, Moral, And Cultural
Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute truth and can change with feelings. There are three
types of Relativism; Absolute, Moral, and Cultural. I will be touching on Absolute and Moral
Relativism. Absolute Relativism is the belief that there is no truth or false. Moral Relativism is the
belief that there is no truth about how one ought to act. To disprove Absolute Relativism you have to
use the test of self reference, which is where you apply a theories criteria to itself, and see if the
theory can survive its own criteria. If it does not survive then it is considered contradictory. Absolute
Relativism is the belief that there is no truth or false. It's definition contradicts itself. It states that
there is no true or false, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Opinion can be either true or false. Truth and falsity are objective, because a statement can not be
both true and false. For example, it is either true or false that Hillary Clinton turned over all of her
emails to the State Department. This means in an objective reality you can find truth. This argument
is not contradictory, therefore this demonstrates that there is an objective truth. The fact that we can
argue morals shows there are different, objective views of morals. And people could use morals to
justify doing bad things, because they could say there is no truth to how one ought to act. But
societies come up with set of morals we agree on. Does this prove them wrong? No, because this is
going against the ad populum fallacy. Which means appealing to higher authorities to determine our
morals are. You can not assume something is right or wrong based on what the populus may feel. So
saying as a society we have morals is a fallacy, this means you could not use this in an

Cultural Ethical Relativism

More Related Content

Similar to Cultural Ethical Relativism

More from Nicole Jones

Recently uploaded

Cultural Ethical Relativism