Cultural Relativism and Claims and Primary Objections about It

Cultural Relativism
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Cultural Relativism
Distinct cultures do things differently since they are guided by varying moral codes. In ethics, the idea of true universality is a myth. The customs of distinctive societies are not objectively correct or incorrect. The paper focuses on cultural relativism, discusses its primary objections, and shows whether cultural relativists have plausible responses to these objections. In addition, it depicts whether there exist modifications to avoid objections and explains the reasons.
Philosophical beliefs make individuals to strongly believe in things done in their communities and become fascinated when they interact with other groups of people and note some differences. That is what happened to Ancient Persia’s King, Darius, when he met Callatians, members of an Indian tribe (Rachels, 1999, p. 12). Based on Darius’ perception, dead bodies should be cremated. However, unlike Greeks, the Callatians ate their fathers’ dead body as a way to honor them. Despite Darius getting shocked, every culture has unique beliefs and ways of doing things. Cultural relativism claims that there is no universal truth in ethics and numerous cultural codes exist. In 1906, William Graham Sumner said that no right way exists other than what the ancestors used and handed down to be practiced by the upcoming generations (Rachels, 1999, p. 14). As such, every culture should adhere to its moral code, beliefs, and norms without criticizing others’ way of life.
Cultural relativists have made various claims about cultural relativism. First, distinct societies have varying moral codes. Second, no objective standard exists that judges a specific societal code to be better than the other. Third, the moral code of a particular society does not have special status, and it is merely one among numerous others (Rachels, 1999, p. 14). Fourth, in ethics, there exists no universal truth. In other words, no moral truth that can be used by all people regardless of their cultures. Fifth, the moral code of a specific society draws the line between what is wrong and right within that society only. Sixth, judging the conduct of others is mere arrogance. Instead, people should be tolerant of other cultural practices (Rachels, 1999, p. 15). Notably, the above six propositions are independent of each other, but they go together naturally. Cultural relativists argue based on the facts about the differences between various cultural outlooks to conclude about the morality status. For instance, the Callatians believed that eating the dead bodies of their fathers was right. In contrast, the Greeks perceived this practice as wrong since they cremated the dead. As such, eating dead bodies is neither objectively wrong nor right. Consequently, it is an opinion that varies from one culture to another.
One of the primary objections to cultural relativism is that the cultural difference argument is not sound. In particular, the primary problem with cultural relativism is that its conclusion does not come from the premise. Even when the premise is true, a false conclusion is possible. The premise emphasizes what individuals believe in or hold to be right or wrong. For example, based on Callatians, the following premise is true. Father’s dead bodies should be eaten. Nevertheless, the above premise has a false conclusion in Greeks. Instead of eating the dead bodies of their fathers, the Greeks cremate them. Besides, in some societies, individuals believe in specific things, and in others, they believe different things (Rachels, 1999, p. 16). The facts about morality are not based on facts about specific beliefs. Let’s use another example to show how the cultural difference argument is not sound. The Eskimos believe that it is right to practice infanticide. However, this behavior or custom is immoral in American society. In that light, infanticide is neither objectively wrong nor right. It is an opinion that varies from one culture to another. The argument made above about the Eskimos is invalid and unsound. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. Indeed, it can be false even if the premise is true. The disagreement between the Eskimos and Americans does not insinuate that objective truth does not exist. Instead, it portrays that different groups of people have varying moral codes, which determine what is right and wrong within that society.
The second biggest objection is that cultural relativism consequences are implausible and disturbing. The assumption to make at this point is that cultural relativism is true. If that is the case, there can be problematic consequences. For instance, moral reform is limited, moral progress can be impossible, and genocide and slavery would be immune from criticism despite them being heinous acts. That is because no one would be allowed to criticize what others are doing since every culture should be guided by its beliefs and norms. If cultural relativism was true, Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions could be considered to be right. Social reformers would not go against any culture since it would be wrong. In addition, atrocious crime...