Cultural Relativism Theory Critique - Research Paper Example

Cultural Relativism Name: Institution: Cultural relativism is amongst the greatest theories that intrigue anthropologists across the globe. The concepts behind cultural relativism still draw arguments with supporting statements from both ends. Cultural relativism in the basic sense is the theory that supports the argument that ethical systems or morals across the various divides of cultures are equally valid. Therefore, according to this theory, no system can be superior to the other (Fieser, 2000). The basis of this theory is from the concept that judgements about right or wrong is a subject of a given society. Thus, whatever, might be considered right or wrong within a given cultural setting cannot be used as a subject of judgement in another culture. Hence, ethical concerns become subjects of relativity to their respective cultural backgrounds. According to cultural relativism, there are no absolute standards of evil or good and hence judgements base to the individual societies. Through cultural relativism, the definitions of some basic terms such as acceptance and tolerance have taken a different dimension due to the expansion of cultural boundaries. Thesis statement Cultural relativism is not an acceptable theory because universal moral truths do exist. Central claim Universally, there are moral truths that cut across all divides of differentiation and thus create the conceptual idea that cultural relativism theory does not fully apply. These universal moral truths are based on what is observed as acceptable across various cultures (Fieser, 2000). However, according to relativists, practices or beliefs of one culture cannot be used to judge another culture. This thus creates the concept that morality behind various cultural practices is only challenged within that culture. Any attempt to conceptualize cultural practices from a given society through the practices or beliefs of other societies creates discrepancies and ambiguity (Andreatta & Ferraro, 2009). Nevertheless, there exist distinct truths about morality all across the different societies and all the societies agree about them. Thus, this contradicts the claim of this theory. Universal morals give the urge to compare and use conclusive judgements for all the societies. Views on acts such as immorality such as robbery, is universal and all societies do not tolerate such acts. In order to come up with such conclusive arguments, considerations are made to the changes that various societies tend to adopt in order to better existence. Thus, universality is created by the concept of changes within various societies that cause their beliefs and practices to converge to similar actions or morals. Due to these changes within the society, the theory of cultural relativism tends to be given different dimension (Cohen, 2009). Universal moral truths generally indicate that cultural relativism is self-refuting. This can be based on the argument that though cultural relativism claims in no absolute concepts of right or wrong, or absolute statements in the universal concept, the fact that it concludes that specific culture defines morality is distinctive and is an absolute statement in itself. Supportive arguments One of the arguments that validate the claim that cultural relativism is not an acceptable theory is the fact that cultural relativism is self-refuting. According to relativists, there is no absoluteness across cultural beliefs. Hence, according to relativists, truth is relative in all aspects of different societies. Any claim made by this group of people is therefore relative and there are no distinct statements that can be derived from these. Possibility of absolute truth in statements is disregarded by the absence of absolute truth. It is thus expected that any statement made by the relativists should not by any chance be absolute or distinct (Rosaldo, 2012). However, it is obvious that the statement that “all truth is relative” in itself becomes an absolute truth. It would create a lot of complexity for relativists if the above statement is not considered as absolute truth since there would be no point of prove of relativity among different cultures. Therefore, the act of taking an absolute meaning of a statement to prove relativity is misplaced and contradictory. It is evident that the use of a given statement as the basis of argument brings the concept of distinctiveness. From this point of view, statements such as the one above are considered absolute and argumentatively, such use of absolute statements guarantees the use of absolute references. This hence brings the possibility of using absolute definitions of morals across various societies and hence cultures. The contradictions within the statements act as a provision to allow for absoluteness in moral views across the societies. Absolute truths must exist to warrantee the existence of universal moral truths. The universal moral truths can only be acceptable when there are absolute truths about them that apply to all the societies. Thus, cultural relativism becomes invalid in this context (Andreatta & Ferraro, 2009). The second proof of not accepting cultural relativism due to the presence of universal moral truth is due to the concept of logic that universal morals are based on. It is evident that it is impossible for cultural relativism to supersede the concepts of logic. One acceptable fact across all divides is the fact that everyone instinctively has the ability to conceptualize that certain things are definitely wrong. This thus forces the relativists to manoeuvre around this with an aim of fitting this need (Anderson, 2010). The concept of relativity brings the need to compare things with no absoluteness. Therefore, two right things are differentiated by the fact that one becomes better compared to the other though nothing is considered the best. However, the concept of accepting that some morals are better introduces the idea of ultimate standards in judgement application (Hales, 2006). On the other hand, the concept of some morals being better compared to others simply indicates that there is a possibility of identifying a better one as a concept of comparison. The concept of discreteness exists and thus it creates the possibility of cultural relativism being invalid. The concept of logic is still useful in understanding the contradictions within cultural relativism in the sense that, relativists expect and in a more vivid way, know that their point of argument is true. For relativists to argue that their point of relativity is true, is discrete (Cohen, 2009). Therefore, this indicates that there is a sense of absoluteness in their arguments. In order for the arguments to be logical, then they have to be discrete in a typical sense. Counter argument The opponents of cultural relativism argue that due to universal morals, the concept of cultural relativism is unacceptable. This to some extend might be true. However, taking into consideration the concepts of these morals, it is evidently arguable that cultural relativism is still acceptable (Rosaldo, 2012). These universal moral truths have their definition or origin from cultural perspectives. Given that, various cultures have different beliefs, morals, and taking into consideration the fact that the various cultural morals are based on enhancing peaceful coexistence, there are high chances that some of these beliefs or morals are similar in different cultural settings. Existence of similar moral beliefs among different cultures is a concept that cannot be ignored (Anderson, 2010). Due to this possibility, it is evident that existence of universal morals is possible within the context of cultural relativism theory. If majority of cultures identifies robbery or rape as unaccepted, anthropologists who have studied these different cultural societies can possibly indicate that the robbery or rape are universal amongst these cultures. The concept of universal morals is also contradictory since these are mainly derived from specific areas or cultures. Universal morals such as human rights defined by international bodies such as United Nations are mostly derived from the cultural aspects of America and Britain. Not all cultures or communities in the whole world accept the various laws put down by UN and this indicates that either these laws contradict their cultural morals or practices and thus not applicable to them. Universal morals are based on logic, but this logic is derived from the values that are favourable to all the cultures (Andreatta & Ferraro, 2009). The concept of cultural relativism is still valid in various areas and fields such as food, language, clothing, food and things like driving rules. For the sake of peaceful coexistence, various cultural societies need to have different food preferences. This is important since it will ensure that not all societies clash for the same food. If not so, this can lead to a worldwide food crisis. Things like clothing must also be different within different societies. These are based on the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. Still on the same, counter argument, the use of universal morals to disvalue cultural relativism is illogical. This is because these universal morals are based on ethical concerns (Anderson, 2010). However, coming up with such must involve an evolved culture. This therefore indicates that the universal morals were subjects of changes that various cultures underwent to improve on their perception about certain things they perceived to be true. As different cultures advance, they end up taking new forms of practices that tend to be the same (Hales, 2006). It is considerable to note that the opponents of cultural relativism agree that these universal morals were realised after some period, indicating that they must have been adopted when most cultures had evolved to practice them. Reply Even though the proponents of cultural relativism argue that due to the probability of having various cultural societies having the same practices guarantees universal moral truth, the concept behind cultural relativism does not allow for any connection between two different cultural societies. Cultural relativism simply indicates that understanding a given cultural society is only possible in the context of that society. Therefore, in order to apply a given judgement to a given individual, it must be done in the context of that cultural society (Hales, 2006). The idea of using one definition, however how much they might be similar, is thus out of context. Even though cultural similarities do exits, the various cultural societies must be looked at differently and thus judgements drawn from individual societies. Hence, this does not provide a logical explanation for the concept of universal morals. The fact that universal morals are from specific cultural societies only is also invalid. This is due to the fact for the aspect of universality to exist these morals must be drawn from logic rather than specific communities (Rosaldo, 2012). The idea that universal moral are based on logic are not disputable in any way and thus still creates a loophole in cultural relativism explaining them. Even if it were possible that the various universal morals were derived from specific cultural societies, it still would contract the basis of cultural relativism since cultural relativism should look at various cultural societies individually irrespective of similarities (Anderson, 2010). Concerning the argument, that cultural relativism can explain universal morals through evolution of ethics also draws many questions. One of such concerns is the concept of change of evolution. Cultural relativism does not embrace changes within a society since it fails to explain the origin of that change. From the various arguments provided, the concept of cultural relativism remains with contentions. Understanding of how societies change and adopt similar standards puts relativists with the task of looking for explanations for clarity. However, various issues concerning how specific societies deal with their issues are clear according to this theory. Thus, the proponents of this theory can easily provide differences between various cultures due to these differences. However, the concept of universality of moral truths still requires a lot of concrete explanation from relativists for the arguments of the theory to hold. References: Andreatta, S., & Ferraro, G. P. (2009). Cultural Anthropology: An applied perspective. New York: Cengage Learning. Anderson K. (2010, February 20). Cultural Relativism .Retrieved August 27, 2012 from probe.org, http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227323/k.FDD6/Cultural_Relativism.htm Rosaldo, R. (2012, January 18). Of Head-hunters and Soldiers: Separating Cultural and Ethical Relativism. Retrieved August 27, 2012, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v11n1/relativism.html Hales, S. D. (2006). Relativism and the Foundations of Philosophy. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Cohen, R. (2009). Human Rights and Cultural Relativism: The need to new approach, American Anthropologist, 91(4), 1014-1017. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1989.91.4.02a00160 Fieser, J. (2000). Moral Philosophy through the Ages. Tennessee: James Fieser. Read More

This can be based on the argument that though cultural relativism claims in no absolute concepts of right or wrong, or absolute statements in the universal concept, the fact that it concludes that specific culture defines morality is distinctive and is an absolute statement in itself. Supportive arguments One of the arguments that validate the claim that cultural relativism is not an acceptable theory is the fact that cultural relativism is self-refuting. According to relativists, there is no absoluteness across cultural beliefs.

Hence, according to relativists, truth is relative in all aspects of different societies. Any claim made by this group of people is therefore relative and there are no distinct statements that can be derived from these. Possibility of absolute truth in statements is disregarded by the absence of absolute truth. It is thus expected that any statement made by the relativists should not by any chance be absolute or distinct (Rosaldo, 2012). However, it is obvious that the statement that “all truth is relative” in itself becomes an absolute truth.

It would create a lot of complexity for relativists if the above statement is not considered as absolute truth since there would be no point of prove of relativity among different cultures. Therefore, the act of taking an absolute meaning of a statement to prove relativity is misplaced and contradictory. It is evident that the use of a given statement as the basis of argument brings the concept of distinctiveness. From this point of view, statements such as the one above are considered absolute and argumentatively, such use of absolute statements guarantees the use of absolute references.

This hence brings the possibility of using absolute definitions of morals across various societies and hence cultures. The contradictions within the statements act as a provision to allow for absoluteness in moral views across the societies. Absolute truths must exist to warrantee the existence of universal moral truths. The universal moral truths can only be acceptable when there are absolute truths about them that apply to all the societies. Thus, cultural relativism becomes invalid in this context (Andreatta & Ferraro, 2009).

The second proof of not accepting cultural relativism due to the presence of universal moral truth is due to the concept of logic that universal morals are based on. It is evident that it is impossible for cultural relativism to supersede the concepts of logic. One acceptable fact across all divides is the fact that everyone instinctively has the ability to conceptualize that certain things are definitely wrong. This thus forces the relativists to manoeuvre around this with an aim of fitting this need (Anderson, 2010).

The concept of relativity brings the need to compare things with no absoluteness. Therefore, two right things are differentiated by the fact that one becomes better compared to the other though nothing is considered the best. However, the concept of accepting that some morals are better introduces the idea of ultimate standards in judgement application (Hales, 2006). On the other hand, the concept of some morals being better compared to others simply indicates that there is a possibility of identifying a better one as a concept of comparison.

The concept of discreteness exists and thus it creates the possibility of cultural relativism being invalid. The concept of logic is still useful in understanding the contradictions within cultural relativism in the sense that, relativists expect and in a more vivid way, know that their point of argument is true. For relativists to argue that their point of relativity is true, is discrete (Cohen, 2009). Therefore, this indicates that there is a sense of absoluteness in their arguments. In order for the arguments to be logical, then they have to be discrete in a typical sense.

Counter argument The opponents of cultural relativism argue that due to universal morals, the concept of cultural relativism is unacceptable.

Read More