What Are The Arguments Against Universalism

Universalism is the opposite metaethical view from cultural relativism, and states that right and wrong are not based on culture or society at all. Moral rules transcend cultural boundaries and apply to everyone; there is only one correct moral code and all people should live by it, regardless of their society or culture. The implication is that in many cases societies are following the wrong moral principles, and they need to change. According to this view morals are objective and therefore they are not human inventions or linked to traditions, popularity, or any other such subjective factor, they are facts that apply equally to all people at all times. The view that universalists take on moral truths can be likened to the way we look at science. In scientific matters we take the view that there is only one truth, and that this truth applies to everyone. Western medical science states that rhino horns have no medicinal benefits whatsoever, after all, they are merely composed of the same material as hair and fingernails. Meanwhile, traditional Chinese medicine states that rhino horns can cure various …show more content…
If euthanasia is morally good then it should be allowed everywhere, meanwhile, if euthanasia is wrong then it should be allowed nowhere. A British person who was a universalist would probably say that the treatment of women in countries such as Afghanistan by the Taliban was disgraceful, and that Afgahan laws and practices need to change. Meanwhile, an Afghan Taliban who was a universalist might well argue that we westerners give our women too much freedom and that we too should be forcing them to be obedient, and punishing them when they are not. Universalism does not tell us which specific things are right or wrong, it merely says that whatever is right is right for everyone, and whatever is wrong is wrong for