Based on Rachel’s point of view on cultural relativism, he defines it as “a theory about the nature of morality” (Rachel, pg 19). He then shows based on his definition of cultural relevance that the argument is invalid. Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow. Therefore the very form of argument is a mistaken belief. Here is what the argument would have us believed. Since, “different cultures have different moral codes” (Rachel, pg 12). It follows from the facts that there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Indicating that there is a culturally neutral standard of right and wrong by which we can judge between two societies. Rachel
…show more content…
It is a societal norm and public opinion not just based on the individual. Society determines what is wrong and right. There is no universal moral standard that holds people in all cultures. Since there is no universal moral standard, the moral values of one culture cannot be judged by another culture, to be any better or worse. Boss indicated that cultural relativism can change within a culture throughout time. Societal if something is legal and acceptable than it is morally acceptable by society/culture. The reading of I.C Jarvie he defines cultural relativism that judgments are based on experience and experiences are interpreted by each individual in terms of their own culture (Jarvie, pg3). Jarvie contrast relativism with ethnocentrism. Indicating that one’s own way of life is to be preferred to all others. In Donnelly article, he defines cultural relativism in two type: strong cultural relativism and weak cultural relativism. Strong cultural relativism is that the rights are culturally determined. Human nature and rights serve as a check on the potential excesses of relativism (Donnelly, pg 401). Meaning at its furthest extreme strong cultural would accept a few basic rights with universal application. While weak cultural relativism indicates that importance of a moral right/rule. There is a weak presumption of universality, allowing limited local variations and exemptions (Donnelly, pg 401). These two types of cultural relativism refer to the extent of cultural variation that is allowed. Donnelly states that we need to be aware not to use quantitative measures of relativism and qualitative judgments of different cultural
It is a societal norm and public opinion not just based on the individual. Society determines what is wrong and right. There is no universal moral standard that holds people in all cultures. Since there is no universal moral standard, the moral values of one culture cannot be judged by another culture, to be any better or worse. Boss indicated that cultural relativism can change within a culture throughout time. Societal if something is legal and acceptable than it is morally acceptable by society/culture. The reading of I.C Jarvie he defines cultural relativism that judgments are based on experience and experiences are interpreted by each individual in terms of their own culture (Jarvie, pg3). Jarvie contrast relativism with ethnocentrism. Indicating that one’s own way of life is to be preferred to all others. In Donnelly article, he defines cultural relativism in two type: strong cultural relativism and weak cultural relativism. Strong cultural relativism is that the rights are culturally determined. Human nature and rights serve as a check on the potential excesses of relativism (Donnelly, pg 401). Meaning at its furthest extreme strong cultural would accept a few basic rights with universal application. While weak cultural relativism indicates that importance of a moral right/rule. There is a weak presumption of universality, allowing limited local variations and exemptions (Donnelly, pg 401). These two types of cultural relativism refer to the extent of cultural variation that is allowed. Donnelly states that we need to be aware not to use quantitative measures of relativism and qualitative judgments of different cultural