Conclusion Of Cultural Relativism

Great Essays
What is cultural relativism and what are James Rachels’ conclusions about cultural relativism? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachel defines cultural relativism as different cultures having different moral codes. Therefore, moral truth is relative and varies from culture to culture. Further on, he justifies why the cultural relativism argument is invalid, and why cultural relativism (if it were true) is an unacceptable form of morality. Finally, he makes concessions to acknowledge some valuable learning points of cultural relativism. In this essay, I argue the flaws in his conclusions and maintains that although it is important for objective truths to exist, cultural relativism may still be a best explanation for some extreme cases of disagreements that we observe today.
The Cultural Differences argument postulates that different cultures have different moral codes. Hence right and wrong is only a matter of opinions, and opinions vary from culture to culture. However, James Rachel points out the invalidity of the argument - the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Disagreements between two different beliefs does not necessarily mean there is no objective truth in the matter, such
…show more content…
Moral relativists such as David Wong and Gilbert Harman have provided a more sophisticated version of moral relativism which mitigated some flaws of the inaugural and naïve form which Rachel argued against. Cultural relativism is also a relevant theory to explain the extreme cases of disagreements in our world. However, there is still invalidity and shortcomings of the cultural relativism argument that hinders moral progress, or deteriorate the view about morality into nihilistic grounds. Hence it is still essential to maintain some moral truths as objective instead of accepting the theory in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The evolutionary story suggests that our moral beliefs evolved organically to select for what would keep a community alive. That our morals do not approach an objective truth, but are merely adaptively fit. This lends to an argument that since we are not evolved to know the truth, our morals may be totally invalid, and so we cannot rationally believe them. This argument that we cannot trust our morals is flawed. The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs.…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The first two premises already assume that all moral codes are categorical imperatives, which has not been proven itself. If each society is following a truly different moral code, it would have been up to that culture’s preference of right and wrong rather than a universal rule they are obligated to carry out. Mackie himself even argues against the validity of any moral code being a categorical imperative on how plausible this case could really be. The argument above assumes in itself that “moral codes express different perceptions of objective values, most of them seriously inadequate and badly distorted” (McKitrick, Lecture). The plausibility that some cultures have “badly distorted” views of what is universally right and wrong is not only offensive, but highly unlikely.…

    • 1437 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Therefore, if progress means making things better by replacing old ways, then those social standards are able to change as well. This makes the idea of cultural relativism implausible according to Racheal because then cultural morals can then be changed. However, he still believes in the teleological theory where the answer to labeling an action as right or wrong is sometimes a nonmoral value.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If the moral views differ, what would be the right thing to do? Cultural relativist fail to offer a consistent answer. Secondly, cultural relativism forces us to conformity. Since just majority groups are right, minority groups are wrong. Where are we leaving our individual reason and critical thinking to improve ourselves?…

    • 1318 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This cannot be the other way around for example a difference in moral concepts is the practice of monogamy. After it is well established that the behavior is appropriate it would become really hard to challenge the norm if that is approved. If we accept this then instead of moral values being objective we accept them as a consequence of a social framework. Mackie’s attack on objective moral values ends rapidly. In some cases cultures adopt a moral code that violates most of the ideas of morality.…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mackie vs. Ethical Objectivism Ethical Objectivism claims that some moral standards are true and some are false and that does not depend in anyway on what people want or believe. This claim is argued by J.L. Mackie, his thesis is that there are no objective values or moral fact. He argues ethical objectivism with two arguments which are the argument of relativity and the argument of queerness.…

    • 413 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    One way he argued for this was through his argument from relativity in which he supposes the best way to explain the wide spread moral disagreement within society was to conclude that values are relative, and there are no objective truths regarding morality. I deem this to be a successful argument, critics whom provide alternative explanations for this phenomenon make a underlying misunderstanding regarding human nature, placing too much emphasis on facts and underling general principles, both of which appear to play a fairly insignificant role in the construction of moral…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In James Rachel’s book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy Rachel argues that there are some major problems with the logic that Cultural Relativism is based on. In this paper I am going to argue against Moral Disagreement in which I will merge Cultural Relativism with subjectivism. CR states that the view rightness/wrongness and goodness/badness are culturally determined. What the majority of one’s culture decides is right or wrong. With that definition I would be sure this is true, but some people disagree with this.…

    • 1526 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays