This paper examines the central theme Moral/Cultural Relativism. It basically focuses on the notion that culture determines and sets morally acceptable behavior. It is important to note that moral codes in different cultures are often different from one another. This is evident in the Callatians’ traditions regarding death. The Eskimos’ belief in infanticide is another example. Finally, we will examine the Cultural Differences argument and apply it to specific cases. This argument is not sound, as it has a weakness that can easily be exploited. Moral Relativism can be shown to be false by examining its logic flaw. Moral Relativism is invalidated by looking at certain perspectives and judgments.
Moral (Cultural) Relativism has as its core idea the belief that morality is shaped primarily by culture and that ethics is not universally true. (Rachels p.21). Moral relativism states that actions will be judged right or incorrect based upon a specific cultural code. This is due to the fact that each culture has its own moral code and therefore, morality can vary from one society to another. Moral relativism asserts that there is no superior moral code. Moral relativism is at the core of moral relativism. It states that no culture can be judged based on its own standards of righteousness or sin. Instead, it suggests that we should seek to understand and respect other cultures. One culture’s moral judgments may not be true in another. In other words, moral judgments that are true in one culture might not be true in the next. Rachels illustrates many cultural differences that support the idea. Rachels starts with the difference in culture between the Callatians, the Greeks. It concerned the manner in which the cultures dealt with their deceased fathers. The Callatians ate the dead father’s body as a cultural custom. The Greeks followed cremation. King Darius, the king in Persia, asked the Greeks whether they would eat their deceased father. The Callatians then asked if they would torch the body. Both the Callatians as well as the Greeks were horrified and shocked. They couldn’t imagine it. (Rachels p.22). While the Greeks believed it was wrong, the Callatians believed it was. This can be a support for moral relativism, since each culture has different opinions.
Rachels gives another example of Rachels’s culture, which Rachels explains in the text. Eskimo men often had more than one wife and were open to sharing their wives with visitors. Males could access the wives of other men. Infanticide was another common practice. They would kill babies and people with disabilities (Rachels, 23). The killing of female babies was much more frequent than that of male babies. When comparing Eskimo culture and American culture, it is clear that the Americans believe infanticide is wrong, while the Eskimos think it’s right. Both arguments regarding infanticide and eating dead bodies are examples of cultural differences. Moral Relativism is an idea that morality and right are determined by opinions (Rachels, page 24).
Rachels explains the Cultural Differences Argument as a way to examine the concept Moral Relativism. This argument can help to determine the morality of a culture by examining its differences. The Cultural Differences argument is based on the fact that cultures differ in their beliefs about moral codes. This makes it impossible to determine objective morality. Morally wrong or right actions and beliefs are simply opinions that can vary from one culture to the next. Rachels defines argument as this form. Rachels uses the following reasoning: Rachels says that although cannibalism does not prove to be wrong, it is a cultural opinion (Rachels, 23). Similar logic applies to the Eskimos. They believed infanticide to be right, but Americans believed it was incorrect. There are many opinions on infanticide that differ across cultures. The Cultural Differences argument can lead to a conclusion that there is no universally accepted moral truth or standard. The only correct or morally acceptable standard is that which is related to one’s cultural background.
Rachels critiques Cultural Differences Argument’s major logical fault. Rachels, p. 24, explains that even though the conclusion is true, it does not follow from its premise. The conclusion, however, is based on what people believe in different societies. Accordingly, the Cultural Differences Argument cannot be accepted because there is no objective truth. This means that there can’t be any disagreement on the truth of a matter. The Cultural Differences Argument’s main flaw is its insistence on a single factual disagreement. (Rachels, p. 25). Different cultures may have different views on a given subject, but there is no right answer. It does not mean that every society has an opinion on a particular subject. To prove that the conclusion is true, you will need to provide supporting evidence.
The belief that the Earth is flat is an example of this flaw. However, others believe it is spherical. It does not necessarily mean there is no objective truth to geography if two different societies disagree on the Earth’s shape (Rachels, p.24). Sometimes, however, societies can be mistaken. Rachels used this example to show that beliefs about the Earth’s form are opinions that differ between cultures. However, disagreements do not mean that morality is objectively true. Because the world’s round, subjectivity in geography is not a conclusion. The fact that we believe the world is circular does not make it so (Rachels, P.24).
Moral Relativism can be invalidated by the Cultural Differences Argument due to its logical flaw. This is possible in many situations. Certain inferences could be drawn if Moral Relativism was true. Rachels says that we should stop judging other societies for being different. This would allow us to stop criticizing certain practices like slavery or antisemitism (Rachels, 25). Moral Relativism would accept these practices even if they are clearly unmoral. Moral Relativism will view social injustices such a slavery and antisemitism “right,” as society has stated. Second, it is possible to see within your society to determine what is right and what’s wrong. This will keep us from criticizing ourselves and our society codes (Rachels. p.25). Cultural Relativism, in its true form, would prevent moral progress (Rachels p.26). Women have always been treated poorly and considered less than men throughout history. Over time, they have become equals. Moral Relativism wouldn’t allow social reformers to challenge ideas within their own society, even though it is true (Rachels p.26).
Martin Luther King Jr., a leader in civil rights movements, would be criticised. Moral relativism would consider such practices acceptable when they are clearly unethical. Moral progress has made many societies more comfortable. Moral Relativism, which asserts that society has made progress in the right direction by abolishing slavery and giving women equal rights to men, is false. The theory must be rejected. Moral Relativism is further disproved by the existence of cultural universals, which can be a logical error in the Cultural Differences Argument. (Rachels p.30). Moral Relativism cannot be defended because of the logical defects in the Cultural Differences Argument.
