Rachel And Rachels 'The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism'

For Rachels and Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," in Abel pp. 397-409. All of your responses should be written in complete sentences.
What is the “Cultural Differences” argument?
Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion and opinions vary from culture to culture.

Why do Rachels and Rachels think it is a bad argument?
The conclusion does not follow from the premise that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
case. The trouble is that this sort conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.

Explain why Rachels and Rachels think that there is not as much diversity in ethics as most people think. Explain an example or two.
This is because they are traditional, and therefore contain in themselves the authority of the ancestral ghosts.
When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis.
Ex.
Different societies have different moral codes.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.

Rachels and Rachels suggest a standard for judging any cultural practice. What is it?
We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it. And, as a corollary, we may ask if there is an alternative set of social arrangements that would do a better job of promoting their welfare. If so, we may conclude that the existing practice is deficient.

What do Rachels and Rachels think we should learn from cultural relativism, even though they think it is a bad theory?
Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our practices are merely peculiar to our society, and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. In reminding us of it, the theory does a service.
The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. We have learned to think of some types of conduct as acceptable, and others we have learned to
reject. For "Moral Relativism," section 4.
Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism exaggerates cultural diversity.
If there are universal values in this sense, then it is an objection to a strong version of descriptive relativism which sees cultural diversity as sufficiently radical to preclude any common ground that all cultures share. It is worth noting that descriptive relativism would also become false in the event of humanity eventually converging on a single moral outlook or of a catastrophe that wiped out all cultures except one.
Ex.
view about the status of moral judgments and the limitations on how they can be supported.

It is likely that most who hold this view see these universal values as constitutive of an objectively correct moral point of view. Understood in this way, the position is incompatible with relativism.
Ex.
This would not follow that everyone should embrace the value(s).

Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism ignores diversity within a culture.
Relativists tend to ignore the extent to which cultures overlap and influence one
another.
These criticisms are related, as both accuse relativists of presupposing an oversimplified and outdated view of what a culture is.

Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. By doing this, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything.
Ex.
Nazi’s are ok and slave owners are doing no wrong because they believe that the practice is moral.

Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism undermines the possibility of a society being self-critical. One way is that they point out that most societies are imperfect even by their own lights; what actually happens usually falls short of the ideals espoused.
There is no such thing as moral progress
Fact: The abolition of slavery is a paradigm of such progress.
Real times
By the same token, moral relativism can also be criticized for not allowing the possibility of moral decline, which also presumably occurs at times.

Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism is pragmatically self-refuting.
Anyone participating in rational discourse reveals, through that very act, a commitment to certain values that belong to a normative notion of rationality: for instance, values such as sincerity or open-mindedness.

Explain the objection to relativism that moral relativism's position on tolerance is problematic
(i) Tolerance is not the same as respect.
The relativist eschews any evaluation of other cultures’ norms in the name of tolerance; however, this attitude is actually patronizing.
(ii) Moral relativists inconsistently posit a principle of tolerance as a universal obligation
If it applies to everyone, then it is a trans-cultural moral principle, in which case relativism is false. If, on the other hand, relativism is true, then this principle of tolerance does not express a trans-cultural obligation binding on everyone; it merely expresses the values associated with a particular moral standpoint..
(iii) The relativist’s advocacy of tolerance is morally misguided since not everything should be tolerated.
Clearly, this is a problem for anyone, relativist or not, who elevates the principle that we should be tolerant to an absolute, exceptionless rule.