The Cultural Differences Argument - Essay Example

Cultural Relativism - Critical Analysis Essay Post “According to cultural relativists, there are no universal moral principles. Instead, morality is nothing more than socially approved customs.” (284) I am in disagreement of cultural relativism for several reasons. First, I believe it is nothing more than a living, breathing fallacy of popular appeal. An example of this, used in the text, is slavery. Because the majority of the South believed it was a moral and decent practice, slavery continued to flourish. According to the theory of cultural relativism, slavery was moral because it was acceptable-until it became outlawed. Argument in standard form Premises 1. According to cultural relativists, there are no universal moral principles. 2. Each society has its own different codes of conduct 3. Each moral or code of conduct applies only to the society in question. 4. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards the custom practices of other cultures Conclusion There is no objective truth in morality; it is nothing more than socially approved customs in a given culture. Discussion Cultural relativism is where each culture or ethnic groups is to be viewed on its customs, behavior on values and norms and not on the basis of those of other cultures or ethnic groups. Cultural relativists see moral norms as a result of culture. They see that many cultures disagree widely on moral norms and values, and there is no way which is clear to solve the differences therein. They, therefore, conclude that there are no accepted objective truths. Cultural relativists see other cultures, not as different not as “wrong”. According to premise one above, it wrong to say that there are no universal moral principles, according to cultural relativists. Cultural relativists like Herskovits declared that the basic principle out of which cultural relativism emerges is “Judgments [moral reasoning] are based on experiences, and experiences are interpreted by an individual in terms one’s own culture [cultural basis]” (Herskovits 15). Cultural relativists are not ethicists! They take into considerations other factors integrated with cultural relativism. The ethicists fail to understand that cultural relativism is itself a failure to distinguish the difference between intra and cross-cultural relativism. The Cultural relativism does not conclude that it is not possible to have a universal system of moral values to guide humans from a universal perspective. Rather, it explains that every society has its own moral norms and values to guide members of that society, but these values are of worth to those who abide by them, but they may differ from those of other, different society members (Herskovits 31). This failure to understand the differences between intra and cross cultural relativism is the one which led ethicist like Abraham Edel to write “If cultural relativism is a sociological truth, then your morality judgment of good and bad, right and wrong) is a function (cause) of your domicile. If moral norms and values assertions are expressive (subjective), it all depends on your feelings…” (Edel 27-28). Cultural relativism only has relevance between cultures and not within a specific culture. It is a cross-cultural principle, not an intra-cultural principle. The first premise thus does not make the conclusion that morality is nothing more than socially approved customs to be true since it is evident that cultural relativism does not advocate ethical or individual relativism. In premise 4 if we abide by cultural relativism, then we will not be able to judge other cultures. We would no longer see other customs as inferior to our own, judging other societies merely because they are “different”. This will be good but only in some cases but not in a case where a society is anti-Semitic and waged a war against a Semite society. Cultural relativism would stop us from interfering, and we cannot even judge on the society which tolerant of Semites and one which is anti-Semites it would be cross-cultural! And such practices would be immune from criticism. It is, therefore, true that morality should be in fact nothing more than socially approved customs. Premise one also contradicts with moral universalism. Cultural relativists differentiated between absolutes and universals. Absolutes are values which are fixed and differ from culture to culture. Universals are the values which all cultures manifest (Herskovits 32). When we say that there are no universal norms, everything we do we base it on our societal standards i.e. the absolutes. It suggest only one test for right or wrong, good or bad i.e. our societal norms. An example is apartheid in South Africa back before 1994. If an individual asked whether apartheid is okay in his/her society and they are told yes it is normal, apartheid would still have been there in South Africa. It is evident that universality has to be there; a culture has to be evaluated in terms of the structure of its cultural and cultural forms and the sanctions that it puts across. The importance of this is in “that the values [and norms] every human group [society] assigns to its conventions arise out of its own history, and can only be understood in the light of that historical background” (Herskovits 41, 47). It is, therefore, true that a morality issue is nothing other than socially accepted customs in a given society. The premise that each moral or code of conduct applies only to the society in question is also misleading and eliminates the possibility of there being any progress. Progress is to replace a way of doing things with a better way. Then under what standard are we going to test that a way is better? It will not come from the blue sky, and it will certainly go trans-cultural. Cultural relativism will make it impermissible to say that a certain culture is better now than how it was in the 18th century. Our ideas of social reforms will have to be re-evaluated. Reformers such as Martin Luther King Jr. strived to change their societies for the better. Within the constraints stated by cultural relativists, there is one reforms are possible. If a particular group is not living up to its cultural standards, the activist or reformer may be regarded as doing the best: The norms of the society are the standard and values by which we judge the reformers proposal as worthwhile. But he may not challenge the ideals, for those ideals are by Cultural Relativism correct. It is evident that in Cultural Relativism, then, the idea of social reforms makes sense only in a limited way. It is true that each society has its own code of conduct otherwise they would be no existing society. It is these morals that will be applied in the society for the normal co-existence of its members. It is; therefore, wrong to judge a society basing your facts to the ethical values of a different society. This is ethical relativism, which is intra-cultural and it’s different from cultural relativism which is cross-cultural. Kroebe stated that each culture must be examined in its own norms, values and structures and not to be rated by the standards of other civilizations eliminate ethnocentricity. These intra-cultural norms are subjective relative and what is right or wrong to that culture might be wrong or right in a different culture. Therefore, it is true to conclude that morality is nothing more than socially approved customs in a given culture. Saudi Arabia has its own moral norms and values concerning sexuality, and they are different from the standards in the U.S; hence according to cultural relativism a ban on issuing driving licenses to women in Saudi Arabia is right and wrong in the U.S. Another example is Eskimos way of hospitality! The men had more than one wife; they would share their women to guests in the night as a sign of hospitality. A dominant male might also get regular sex access to other men’s wives. The women could also break the relationship arrangement by simply leaving their husbands and take up new partner, this Eskimo life bores little resemblance to marriage. Again in premise 2, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It is true that different cultures have different moral codes, but it is not necessarily true that the mere fact that people disagree makes not possible to have an objective truth. To clarify this, in some societies, people believe the earth is flat, such as the Catholics till 1990 when the pope acknowledged that the earth is not flat; many people and scientists believe the earth is an obliged spheroid. Does it follow, from the fact that people disagreed, that there is no "objective truth" in scientific exploration and geography? Of course not; Catholics would draw such a conclusion because they realize that, in their imaginations about the world, the members of some other societies might be wrong. There is no reason to imagine that if the earth is round everyone else must know. Consequently, there is no reason to imagine that if there is “moral truth” everyone must know. The grave mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument as depicted by premise 2 is that it attempts to derive a conclusion about a given subject from the fact that persons disagree on the facts of the subject. We are not saying that the conclusion to this argument is false, but it does not follow from the premise. Works Cited A., Edel. Ethical Judgment: the Use of Science in Ethics. Glencoe: Free Press, 1995. Print. Bickenbach, Jerome E. and Jacqueline M. Davies. Good Reasons For Better Arguments. An introduction to the basic skills and values of critical thinking. Broadviews press, 1997. Print. Herskovits, Melville J. Cultural relativism; perspectives in cultural pluralism. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. Print. Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1950. Print. Kroeber, A. L. "Anthropology." Scientific American (1950): 87-94. Print. Read More