Cultural Relativism Essay

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...
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
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

It is believed that different cultures throughout the ages have understood morality in different ways.
This phenomenon raises the question of whether our perception of morality is really objective or in
fact just the byproduct of socially constructed ideas. In this essay I will argue that even though
culture has some influence when considering ones actions, there are some cases where cultural
considerations make no difference in whether an action is moral or not. Thus I will argue for the
existence of an objective universal standard of morality independent of human culture. This will be
in contrast to the theory of cultural relativism which states that all morality is determined by
cultural norms. In the first part of this essay I will examine a crude form of the argument made by
cultural relativism and then a more refined version. I will also critically assess the assumptions
upon which cultural relativism is based. This will be done in an attempt to show that some
objective moral truths do in fact exist in all societies, even in those ones where it does not seem so
evident at first glance. Lastly, I will distinguish between morally required and morally permissible
actions and how culture can make a difference with regards to the latter.
The theory of cultural relativism states that there is a disagreement between cultures regarding
morality. It therefore concludes that there is no objective moral standard in the world and that each
culture's moral code is right within the

Cultural Relativism Essay
Cultural relativism, pioneered in 1906 by sociologist William Graham Sumner, introduces the idea
that there is no universal code of ethics. In "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," written by James
Rachels, Rachels explains and challenges the ideas presented by Sumner in cultural relativism.
Rachels explains,
"Cultural relativism is the doctrine that all moral values derive entirely from individual cultural
codes, and that there are no objective, independently correct moral values. In other words, there are
no absolute truths about what is right and wrong because judgements of right and wrong are all
relative to a given culture. "
Rachels starts by explaining how different cultures have different moral codes. For example, the
Greeks...show more content...
The arguments are as follows:
"Different societies have different moral codes.
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, that that action is right, at least within that society.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society 's codes better than another 's.
In other words, there is no "universal truth" in ethics; there are no moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
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. "
Rachels points out that these ideals may seem to be adequate at first glance, but may actually be
contradictory of each other. Numbers two and five, for example, could contradict the other (Rachels
463).
He also begins to talk about the form of argument that cultural relativists present. All arguments they
present deal with appealing to our morality and tolerance, and the presentation of the argument does
not actually follow the conclusion of the argument. He also points out that the conclusion may not
necessarily be false, but it simply does not follow the premise presented initially. Overall, Rachels
main problem with cultural relativism is that it does not have valid

Cultural Relativism
1.Cultural relativism is one of the core concepts of anthropology. Are there any limits to this
concept? If so, what are they? Is there a place in anthropology for the idea of universal human rights?
a.In essence there are no limits to cultural relativism since it's the study and understanding of cultures
and religions, the only problem with this is getting accurate neutral information of a certain culture or
religion but it's a possible task.
b.There is and it's the ideal that anthropology tires to achieve where a common base of human rights
could be established where every culture and religion could exist without any conflict and always
respecting each other. (Pages 10–11–12)
2.The concept of holism suggests that religion affects and is affected by other domains of culture. In
our own culture, how does religion interact with other realms of culture?
a.In Mexico religion and culture interact in a daily basis to create the complexity of the Mexican
lifestyle. Traditions like "Dia de muertos" interact with Catholicism in a way where the tradition is
respected without offending the catholic beliefs. Since Catholicism take really negative any
interaction with magic, superstition or other religions, the tradition grew and adapted to be about
honoring and remembering our death relatives who die and went to heaven. (Pages 1–2)
3.Why do you think religion is universal? (no page number needed – your observations)
a.Since we can recall religion is been part of humanity.

Culture Relativism Essays
Culture Relativism
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. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend
that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the
correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of
universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the
culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that
this is a truth all...show more content...
Then a very thought–provoking rational was extended to the reasoning behind such cases, Eskimos
are a very isolated and nomadic group the ability to survive in very harsh weather is the key to
survival in this culture, therefore one must produce to support the family, the men in the family
produce and the women take care of the family. If one grows elderly and is unable to produce or
take care of the family the person is left outside to die. This natural population control is the key to
being able to have enough supplies for the family to survive. Also the Eskimo birthrate is very high,
because of the limitations on the culture to produce for itself it can not sustain a high birthright,
moreover because of the distribution of sexes in families it is not uncommon for the female to be
put to death at birth, while the male will be raised to hunt and support the family. It takes more
males then females. It would be better to put one person to death than lose the whole family because
there are not enough supplies to go around. A cultural relativist would contend that because of these
stipulations it would be wrong to assume because the Eskimos are different

Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism How could we define the "true" morality that humanity should live by when
there are multiple aspects that alter when wrong may be right and when right may be wrong?
Cultural relativism is the principle that one's values, beliefs, and practices are understood
specifically by its culture. In other words, "right" and "wrong" may be moral in one culture, but
immoral in another. We might also practice beliefs aside from our culture, but the norms of our
surrounding environment are generally what we abide by. However, should ourcultural relativism
always be followed? Consider being on the verge of death willing to do anything to survive, or
maybe what might be the right thing to do any other time and place, may be the wrong thing to do
at another. Some may argue that people should only be judged by their specific culturalmorality
aside from our own, while others believe that people must be judged on what is the right thing to
do for everyone in any given situation. I agree with both standpoints, however, because of the many
differences in circumstances, relativism must correspond to the given situation. Section three of
Virtuous Persons, Vicious Deeds by Alexander Hooke tells the story of the Ikes. The Ikes were an
African American tribe that was forced by their government to abandon the grounds in which they
hunted for food (pg. 17). Being hunters their whole lives, it was difficult for them to adjust to
farming as a source of food and most of them died

Cultural Relativism
In the case of cultural relativism; it is based on the right way to do things and the wrong way.
Instead, right and wrong are based on social norms. Such could be the case with "situational ethics,"
which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals
have evolved, that they have changed over time, and that they are not absolute.
Different cultures differ when it comes to their moral codes. One cultural may have a sideways
outlook or customary viewpoint when it comes to how society their different moral standards. In our
eyes the view may seem wrong or out of place. We need to understand that these customs have been
laid down through hundreds of years, from generation to generations. This is tradition to these
people and their unique moral codes to follow and pass down to their children. (faculty.uca.edu/rnovy
/rachels)
It seems our belief system is tested by different cultural relativism. In ethics from my perspective
there seems to be no one single moral truth. This is why so many of us are sceptical of other
cultures and how their moral beliefs, confusion sets in when we are trying to understand each culture
code of honor. We can clearly see that here in our country our moral codes are not higher or lower
than most it simply one of a few....show more content...
In our attempt to comprehend why and what makes them believe so strongly. There is no set
standard that is written in stone even when it comes to religious beliefs they too have certain ways
and belief systems. In morality right and wrong are our own opinion, and opinions fluctuate from
culture to culture. It would be wise not to point out other people cultures as being wrong just
because they do not coincide with our way of belief. This is one of focused points of cultural
relativism.

Every individual in the world has their own culture they practice. A person's culture is sometimes
not understood; however, that's when the idea of cultural relativism comes up. The idea concerns a
person's beliefs and activities. It's based on a person's culture. A cultural practice could be out of
hand and at other times it's not. I believe that there are limitations to a person's cultural practices. I
limit myself to the point at which people do things that have not been proven to work. Nevertheless,
I am okay with a practice that does not physically harm anyone.
First of all, I tolerate any cultural practices that does not cause physical injury. I believe that any
cultural practice that provokes injury is one that should not be practiced. For instance, there is a
cultural practice in the village of Castrillo de Murcia. The practice involves babies and men dressed
as devils. Parents lay their babies on the floor and men, which are dressed in a traditional devil
costume, jump over them. The reason why they practice this is because babies are considered
"little sinners." Once they jump over them they are considered absolved of man's original
transgression (Grundhauser). I find this practice acceptable because no one is getting hurt. In
addition, these babies are put in protective areas. Unlike other practices, these people put babies in a
mattress with sheets and pillows. It is unlike to cause to the babies and that's why I find this practice
acceptable.

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

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...
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
The basic idea of cultural relativism is to understand the different cultures of the world by observing
it through the viewpoint of the people who are part of that specific culture.
Considering the outlook for Muslim Women of Middle East, they have always been seen as the
ones who are in need of help which their western counterparts are always more than ready to assist
them. Parting them from the practices they have been performing for quite some time is not a way
to protect them from oppression. These norms and customs that they follow have become the part of
their culture and by fighting against such standards in the namesake of Human rights that were
created by western mentalities is no different from the exploits done by the colonial rulers to stay in
power. This certainly not mean that those specific custom or norm depriving the freedom of
individuals are good but looking at it without the stubborn perspective of the culture we grew up
with is the best way to tackle the human rights issues.
We cannot assume that freedom from such ways of life that we consider barbaric is all they want
and it holds them back from pursuing anything in the world. Yes, it is agreeable that if an act
performed by or done on someone is causing harm to someone, it is necessary to educate the people
about it but not prohibiting it forcibly and immediately. According to the documentary Iran: Behind
the Veil, the veiling of women in countries like Iran give them an impression of being

There were times of hesitation and skepticism leading up to taking a course on American Indian
studies. Am I even interested in this? Is it relevant to me? Will I take anything away from this
course? These moments of worry were short lived and now near the end of the course I find myself
promoting the importance in learning of these once unfamiliar tribal people for good reasons. It is
important to learn about Native Americans in Iowa so that we can support their communities,
understand the complexity of their culture, build respect for their culture, clear up any misconceptions
we have towards Natives, and help people come to realize their ethnocentric thoughts and turn
towards cultural relativism.
Learning to respect the diverse natures between American culture and American Indian cultures
so that we can better relate to peoples who lived/live in our state is undeniably important, but can
only happen by taking the first step in actually educating oneself on some of those differences.
Some basic yet essential differences lie in Iowa Native's economic principles along with their
kinship system. I believe it is most important for Iowans to start with two big differences in culture
like these to start breaking down the barriers of personal bias as to what culture "should" look like.
Iowa Native's economy operated on the basis of the exchanging of gifts with one another in a sort of
indirect bartering (Whitman 4). No real rules mean this system can get complicated quickly much

Moral principles being determined by each culture can be described as conventional ethical
relativism. Every culture is entitled to have their own moral laws, beliefs and values, and these will
differ from culture to culture. What is moral in one culture could be considered immoral in another,
which is something that we must accept. With subjectivism, every individual is given the ability to
determine their own morals, which often lead to chaotic consequences. Ethnocentric, involves
elevating other cultures based one's cultural values. However, people should practice cultural
tolerance, a theory where we respect other culture's beliefs, instead of judging them and attempting to
alter them.
Conventional relativism is defined as morality and...show more content...
So, we are under no power to decide what is moral, and what is not. Most people will side with the
morals set forth to them by that culture. One example would infanticide, which in some countries is
still viewed as moral practice, "Until the fourth century, infanticide was neither illegal nor immoral.
Complete parental control of the father over the life of his child was dictated by both early Greek
and Roman laws." To western nations this practice seemed immoral, but to those countries this
practice is a necessary way to rid of unwanted infants. As incredibly horrific as it sounds, it is
considered to practical and moral in these nations, and conventional relativism emphasizes that each
culture is entitled to their own moral values.
Subjectivism is a theory that states morality being completely relative to the person, and values and
morals are not defined by anyone other the individual. This can be related to question that many
philosophers ask, who are you to judge? Meaning who are we to determine what other people's
morals should or should not be. In conventionalism relativism, morals change from culture to culture,
while with subjectivism, their values change from person to person. "This view recognizes the social
nature of morality, which is theory's key asset. It does not subject to same absurd consequences that
plague subjectivism." With conventional

Is cultural relativism good for our society?
Cultural relativism is a belief where there are no absolute moral views or beliefs can be apply to
all cultures, which makes "right" and "wrong" different in every society; what is considered "right"
in one society may be considered "wrong" in another. Since no universal standard of morality exists,
no one has the right to judge another society's customs. If this belief is held true, then every
culture will have their own set of "rules" to live by and no one can judge on, even they are doing
things that are abnormal in this world, because in that particular group the action will be viewed as
perfectly normal. This creates a situation where no person regardless of his or her authority in...show
more content...
Another example will be genocide. The definition of genocide is a intentionally action that causes
extinction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, which means that if each group of
people doesn't allow another to exist, then this world will become a mess where may lead to the
whole human race extinction. In pg.5 of James Rachels's essay, he wrote, "There are some moral
rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist".
The examples and quote explain why there are universal rules exist in each culture and every
society's rules are not that different from each other.
Society rules created by human are not perfect, we should have the right to judge and improve
them. Cultural relativism prevents progress within the society because we don't have a standard
to judge a new way of doing as better, when comparison is prohibited. About a hundred years ago,
slavery was common in our world, but this has changed recently. In nowadays, slavery doesn't
exist anymore. Most people see this as progress for human rights, but if cultural relativism really
exists, then prohibiting slavery will not be seen as progress. The definition of progress is an
advance towards maturity and perfection, which in society can mean replacing an old idea with one
that is "better" so that it can become more perfect. James Rachels wrote in his

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...
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

Since all human beings living in the present–day on Earth are part of one society, cultural relativism
is an acceptable theory to adhere to. A society is a collective group of people who are either
figuratively or literally aggregated together. There are many societies, sub–societies, and
communities that are overlapping. At the same time, every living individual in the world makes up
an umbrella society or community that constructs the present–day society. In "The Challenge of
Cultural Relativism," James Rachels claims that there are consequences to accepting cultural
relativism, but Rachels does not define exactly what a society consists of, who is included in it, and
provides an excessive description of the different sub–societies....show more content...
2). The complexity of cultural relativism makes it a relative phenomenon, and so it can be looked
at in many different points of views. In order for society to adhere to a code of morals and ethics,
there must be an agreement within that society. However, if the society is not properly identified,
there cannot be a deciding body. Cultural relativism applies to societies and cultures, and can be
applied within one umbrella society or culture, such as present–day Earth, or can be applied to a
sub–society or culture, such as the Eskimo community. In order to properly determine whether or
not cultural relativism can be taken seriously and practiced within a society, the society's practices
must be properly identified. If cultural relativism were assessed for a society identified as
present–day Earth, infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly would be an issue consulted on by the
majority of human beings, or at least those who it concerns. Because these practices do not affect
other sub–societies under the society of present–day Earth, they go unnoticed. However, should an
issue within one sub–society affect another sub–society, then the society of present–day Earth could
successfully employ adherence to cultural relativism and still intervene because they are now all part
of the same society. As an example, the society of 1940s Germany's practice of the Holocaust
affected many Jews throughout Europe, resulting in a

In February 2007, the fourth annual conference of "Zero Tolerance Against Female Genital
Mutilation/Cutting" was held. Their meeting brought together scholars and lay people alike, all
whose main concern was the issue of Female Genital Cutting (FGC). However, this conference was
unlike others in that the focus of discussion wasn't how to eliminate this practice, but rather,
whether it should be eliminated at all (Goldberg 121). When Fuambai Ahmadu, a Ph.D. fellow and
first generation American from Sierra Leone, took the floor, everyone listened. Ahmadu was raised
in America and as an adult, traveled back to Sierra Leone to take part in the ritual of Female Genital
Cutting. She chose to participate in this "initiation" and what she feels is...show more content...
in Shell–Duncan 3). She further notes that the "the inability of children below a certain age to
provide informed consent, their vulnerability provides a potentially compelling basis for denouncing
the practice of FGC" (Shell– Duncan 4). This is exactly the kind of evidence that the anti–FGC
campaign presents to criticize the practice. They claim that especially since girls are at an age
when they cannot give their consent, FGC is a fundamental violation of their human rights (Boyle
270). As Americans, it is easy for us to take an ethnocentric view on FGC. When we hear of any
practice where part of a girl's genitalia is removed, it sounds horrifying. We take this position
naturally because the practice of FGC is unknown to us; it is something we do not understand–and
therefore we can easily condemn it. We hear that this procedure takes place in Africa, Indonesia and
The Middle East. Since we deem these countries third–world, we assume these people are
un–educated, ignorant and need our (America's) help, to eradicate the tradition of FGC. Many
believe that Female Genital Cutting is an archaic tradition supported by male dominated societies to
keep women in their subservient roles. However, if we examine this procedure closer, one will find
many parallels with Western cultures and an extreme hypocrisy with this reasoning. Female Genital
Cutting is often referred to (in the West) as Female Genital Mutilation. However, there is quite a

Essay about Cultural Relativism
If we look at the world today, there are millions of cultures centered everywhere. With this much
cultures in the world, everyone is bound to believe that they're all different. Even though they are
different in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the case, do
we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural
difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge the cultural practices of other
societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it
right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe,
we begin to have a deeper insight this idea of...show more content...
One of those rights is the right to freedom of thought, which means that every human being has the
right to believe in what they want to believe. As a result, no person should judge other beliefs
because they'll just influence others to do the same. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 18 states that," Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," and
that the right includes," freedom to change his religion...either alone or in a community..." Through
this right, everyone can believe what they want we have no right to judge. If we judge them, then
we ourselves infringe on everyone's right to be equal (article 1). Through cultural relativism,
everyone can keep their rights and the world would rest in peace without any unnecessary fights.
Instead of trying to judge the cultural beliefs of others, we could instead attempt to gain a better
understanding of their beliefs. An example is in Things Fall Apart, where Mr. Brown and Akunna
talk to each other in hopes that they would convert each other. They both have different views on
religion; Mr. Brown believes in Christianity while Akunna believes in multiple gods. However,
instead of immediately judging the beliefs of each other, they sit down and talk to each other
peacefully about it. In the end, they learn that their religions are not as different as they had first
thought. They both have "one supreme God" and they both have

Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism Essay
Meta–Ethical Cultural Relativism
The thesis of meta–ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no
absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is
therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may
consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular
society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given
culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and
the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of
these...show more content...
Rachel's claim that physical facts are independent of beliefs about those facts is not justified. We
never have access to the physical world apart from, or independent of, some scientific or conceptual
framework. There is no "view from nowhere" which we can use to determine whether our
judgements about the world are true or not. Moral facts are similar. In both cases the truth or falsity
of a claim can only be evaluated against the background of some conceptual framework or another.
It is in this respect I believe that Rachel's argument can be criticised.
I would like to add a personal criticism to the cultural differences argument. The argument presumes
that a moral action within a given society is correct as long as the society condones the act. I
believe that this presumption is faulted given that, as history has often shown us, certain societies
have been forced, or manipulated into, condoning and carrying out certain acts on behalf of the
authorities within the society. The most common example of this would be Hitler's powerful
influence over Germany during World War two that led the country to brutal monstrosities such as
the Holocaust. A possible solution to this problem, I believe, would be to add a simple remark to the
argument; 'Different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no one set of correct moral
codes, only

Strengths And Weaknesses Of Cultural Relativism
Anthropology has been defined in a plethora of ways– mostly depending on historical
contextualization of how society defined and streamlined cultural relations and scientific theory.
Anthropological theory originally set out not to encounter empirical evidence of the "othered"
groups existing in the world as they factually were, but to reinforce ethnocentric tropes and
assumptions that justified colonialism and dominance by Indo–European civilizations. Persian
philosopher Herodotus long ago discussed this issue of bias, stating, "If anyone, no matter who, were
given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the set of beliefs which
he thought best, he would inevitably–after careful considerations of their relative merits–choose that
of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion
he was brought up in, to be the best" (the Histories 3.38). I use this quote to illustrate that each
anthropologist we have studied has been victim to their own personal biases, as all of us tend to do,
but it is in analyzing these weaknesses in personal logic that have been essentially in debunking
ethnocentrism and elitism in the academic field over time. So within this framework, I would like to
observe how Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict and Alfred Kroeber analyzed cultural relativism, evaluating
how relativistic each was in their work and how realistic their approaches are in modern day
sociocultural anthropological

Cultural Relativism Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Custom Paper Services

More from Custom Paper Services (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cultural Relativism Essay