Cultural Relativism Vs Objective Moral Theory

In any moral theory debate, the arguments as to what justifies an action as right or wrong presents divergent understandings on the ground of moral philosophy. Thus, when examining a certain action, one person might consider it deeply morally wrong while another person would perceive it as completely acceptable. With such a controversial case, one would wonder which response would be most correct? Is there a distinct right answer to this situation? Or could it be that varied answers could be right for different people? Specifically, is morality relative or objective? Cultural relativism and objective moral theory are two opposing arguments that deliver explanations as to what describes a conduct as right or wrong. Accordingly, this essay will examine the differences between both theories to decide which of these two positions is better and why.
Cultural relativism is the stance that moral proposals do not reflect objective and/or universal truths but instead make …show more content…
In its simplest term, objective morality states that there are universal truths that create an acknowledged basis to separate the right from the wrong. Hence, for an objectivist it is clear that the action performed by the king and his tribe is completely immoral and wrong. So the question that challenges a cultural relativist is: when an individual does something wrong by the perspective of a cultural relativist, does that make it ok with the latter even though it is acceptable in the culture of the former individual? Of course not, because while although a cultural relativist could no longer say that the traditions of another society is inferior to his own, he would still nonetheless have his own cultures and morals to reflect upon. It is in the fact that he acknowledges that the other individual is wrong when he reflects the action on his own culture is when he automatically invokes a universal standard that applies to both their