Cultural Relativism

cultural relativism

the view that there are no universal truths in ethics; there are only various cultural codes and nothing more. no code of conduct is superior to any other code

benedict’s case for cultural relativism

different cultures have very diverse set of norms and moral standards. since each cultures moral standards are particular to that culture, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all cultures. therefore, right and wrong are not universal but are culturally relative. for a code of conduct to be “right” means that a particular culture regards it as normal and approves of it, and for a code of conduct to be “wrong” means that a given culture regards it as aberrant and disapproves of it

the cultural differences argument

different cultures have different moral codes. therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture

is the cultural differences argument sound?

Rachels thinks it is unsound

rachels contra the cultural differences argument

the premises concerns what people believe. the conclusion concerns what is really the case. this sort of conclusion doesn’t follow logically from this sort of premise

rachels consequences of accepting cultural relativism

we can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own
we can determine whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our own society
the idea of moral progress is called into doubt

rachels bad consequence #1

If cultural relativism is true, then no set of social mores are objectively superior to any other set, and so we cannot say that the mores of any society are worse than those of our own

rachels bad consequence #2

If cultural relativism is true, then whatever any given society regards as right is right for that society. So in order to determine what is right, all we would have to do is to consult the standards of our own society and see what most people believe. But we often admire people who follow their conscience and do what is right even when almost everyone in their society disagrees with them. If cultural relativism were true, it wouldn’t make sense to admire people who defy society for the sake of moral progress.

rachels bad consequence #3

If cultural relativism is true, then it cannot make sense to speak of a societal change as an instance of moral progress. For society to progress means that it replaces an inferior set of mores with a superior one. But if cultural relativism is true, no set of mores is objectively superior to any other set. If we embrace relativism, all we can say is that a society changes; we can’t say that it gets better or worse. But this clashes with the belief most of us hold that societies often become more moral over time.