Rachels Arguments Against Cultural Relativism

There are many cultures in the world, from the western culture of America to the Inuit culture of Siberia. Cultural Relativism argues that every culture, no matter how different, is entitled to their own beliefs and other cultures do not have the right to take offense to another culture’s beliefs. This means that morals that may seem correct in one culture may be considered morally wrong by another culture. An argument against cultural relativism would be that if Cultural Relativism were considered to be fact societies could not criticize their own culture meaning there could be no change in culture. In “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by Rachels, Cultural Relativism is explained by using real world cultural differences to support and criticize Cultural Relativism. In an overview of Rachels’ arguments in favor of the absolute truth of Cultural Relativism Rachels explains that because cultures are developed …show more content…
For example in most cultures of the world infanticide would be seen as an unforgivable crime. However in the Inuit culture in Infanticide “was permitted at the parents’ discretion, with no social stigma attached”(Rachels, 15). Cultural relativists would argue that although the Inuit culture does not value human life, it would be wrong for other cultures to intervene, just like it would be wrong for Intuits to intervene with western culture for cherishing infant life. In conclusion, Cultural Relativism is the belief that a society’s morals are decided by the culture and that it is wrong for different cultures to intervene with one another because of their customs. Although an argument against Cultural Relativism would suggest that if Cultural Relativism were fact a change in a society’s culture would not be possible, it is still a good guideline to follow when encountering other