Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism holds that there is no universal morality that is common among all cultures. Specifically, in an article on cultural relativism James Rachels states the following characteristics of cultural relativism:
1) Different societies have different moral codes;
2) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another;
3) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many;
4) There is no "universal truth" in ethics--that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times;
5) The moral code of a society detemrines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action *is* right, at least within that society;
6) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards practices of other cultures.
The argument for cultural relativism goes like this:
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.
Now, this isn't really a good argument, since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. The fact that there are differences doesn't imply there is no universal morality. After all, most societies agree that murder is wrong and have sanctions against things like theft, etc.
However, according to cultural relativism, we can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. If there is no universal standard that helps us decide what is right and wrong objectively, then when a tyrant or dictator does horrible things in another country, then there is nothing the culturalist relativist can do to justify helping those people. Because cultural relativism is about "tolerance," you try to tolerate everyone's beliefs --- but in
1) Different societies have different moral codes;
2) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another;
3) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many;
4) There is no "universal truth" in ethics--that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times;
5) The moral code of a society detemrines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action *is* right, at least within that society;
6) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards practices of other cultures.
The argument for cultural relativism goes like this:
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.
Now, this isn't really a good argument, since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. The fact that there are differences doesn't imply there is no universal morality. After all, most societies agree that murder is wrong and have sanctions against things like theft, etc.
However, according to cultural relativism, we can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. If there is no universal standard that helps us decide what is right and wrong objectively, then when a tyrant or dictator does horrible things in another country, then there is nothing the culturalist relativist can do to justify helping those people. Because cultural relativism is about "tolerance," you try to tolerate everyone's beliefs --- but in