Morality and the Culture People - Essay Example

Morality and the Culture People Introduction Morality is relative to the culture a person finds himself or herself in, holds when there are different moral truths for different people, and it comes as the cultural relativism. This view is in complete view with the existence of moral absolutes, and that it is untrue that moral truths can be universal. In this view, it does not make sense to proclaim that a given issue is good or bad, and the abstract question cannot be wholesomely classifies as either good or bad, the abstract goodness or badness is subject to a certain context. This means that an act can be good for an individual in a certain setting but bad for another individual in another cultural setting. According to the theory, moral relativism, and in particular, its relationship with culture, is true only when an act is good or bad relative to the culture , hence it is not prudent for one to ask whether an action is good or bad in the abstract. There are sections of scholars who perceive moral relativism in respect to culture as an obvious truth that cannot be denied. On the other hand, others perceive it as the contributing factor to the decadence of the society. This topic has been a subject of intense philosophical arguments and counter arguments, and in this paper, moral relativism to the culture is criticized and explored from a personal point of view. Beliefs across Different Cultures Morality that is relative to culture has liberal implications for ethics, and as result it is a very significant topic, and the opinion on moral cultural relativism is virtually important. This is a very practical impact of philosophical argument on the society, and not just selectively, but as a whole. Proponents of this argument normally point out that different cultures are built on different moral beliefs, and that morality is just a result of specific culture. Moral absolutism is clearly the contrast to moral relativism, and in this argument, the proponents point out that moral cultural relativism is flexible. The former assert that there are exceptions to any moral codes, and in situations such as theft, lying and others can be morally justified, however, when the moral absolutism do not exist, then moral cultural relativism is true. Tolerance perspectives often validates this claim, and it suggests that only moral cultural relativism is consistent with the notion that people should tolerant of others that do not share similar opinions, especially people from a different cultural background. People from different cultural background must not consider that their own culture is morally more superior to the other cultures, and this is the foundational belief amongst the relativists. Moral Superiority Obviously, the arguments in favor of moral cultural relativity must not be taken as the gospel truth, rather, as the other side of the coin in the argument. Therefore, Criticisms of it constitute the other side of the coin, and on this side of their coin, there are scholars who have totally rejected the argument, whilst others have only rejected it in parts. For instance, it is not right to perceive a certain culture as being morally superior to another, with the notion of making cross-cultural comparisons. To make a cross-cultural comparisons that stands in favor of the arguments then it would be important to build a cross-cultural standard, and this what exactly moral cultural relative proponents point as lacking (Rae 37). Further, moral cultural relativism arguments point out that people cannot make reasonable moral comparisons of a single culture through time, and this means that people cannot adjudge a culture having improved or degenerated across time. In general, moral cultural relativism arguments cannot make sense of moral progress in people. Often there are people who have spearheaded what changes in the society, which constitute moral progress in the society. Things like the end of slavery, equality rights, civil rights victories and amongst others, and according to the arguments of moral cultural relativism, these people are bad as they acted in contrast to the cultural values that were prevailing in that particular time period. Tolerance Moral cultural relativism has a dogmatic embedded assertion that there is no moral truth, yet tolerance is the situation that demands that people keep open-minded positions of others. The two opinions are strictly confusing, and one can ask that how no moral truth assertion, a position already can be in the same bed with open-mindedness (Cook 25). For one to be open-minded provides the individual with the chance for another individual to have some truthful opinions to say, but moral cultural relativism assumes that there is no truth, and this defeats the reason for a person to be open-minded. It can therefore be argued that moral cultural relativism, therefore, is a closed-minded argument for those people in search of the moral truth. Barbarism of Tolerance It is without any doubt that tolerance has been established as the epicenter of arguments on morality as relative to culture and further, moral cultural relativism look out for diversity of moral and cultural backgrounds (Levy 91). Nonetheless, tolerance can mean accommodating arguments from people that disagree with each other, for instance, those who accept homosexuality, and those that are strictly homophobic accepting one another’s moral standing. If the homophobic people pass arguments that are in favor of exterminating those of the same sex relations, then tolerance must prevail. If the tolerant position is rejected, then the position discussed above becomes intolerant and self-defeating. Tolerance implies acceptance of all, plus people who an individual perceived as barbaric; otherwise, one becomes intolerant and defeats the very argument on moral cultural relativism. Conclusion This point might be misconstrued as the very basis of moral cultural relativism is based on the assertions of a non-judgmental, wholesome, and partial on moral beliefs. However, the moral cultural relativist will make claims to the effect that if a person believes in the objective moral truth then such a person it wrong, hence the moral cultural relativism is judgmental. Secondly, moral cultural relativism blankets out people who claim to have the objective moral truth, and hence the proponents are exclusivists. Due its exclusivity, every person who is perceives morality in terms of absolutism cannot be conjured to be thinking correctly; hence, morality that is relative to culture is partial. Works Cited Cook, John W. Morality and Cultural Differences. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print. Levy, Neil. Moral Relativism: A Short Introduction. New York: Oneworld Publications, 2014. Print. Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 2000. Print. Read More