Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights - Essay Example

? What is relativisms? Is relativism defensible? Contents Introduction 3 Moral Relativism 4 Ethical Relativism 7 Cultural Relativism 9 Cognitive Relativism 12 Conclusion 14 Reference 15 Introduction The concept of relativism does not bear any absolute validity, as the subjective value of the concept may be different for different people based on their consideration and perception. There are many forms of relativism which vary according to the degree of controversy. Relativism is often used for the moral principles, ethics and cultural relativism. Relativism can be of various forms like the philosophical versus the anthropological relativism and normative versus the descriptive relativism. According to the anthropological relativism is a way of understanding the cultural biases based on the behaviours and beliefs of the local inhabitants. This relativism avoids ethnocentrism, i.e., thinking that one’s own culture is the best with respect to others. On the other hand, philosophical relativism is the sceptic notion about the proposition of truth based on the person interpreting it because this kind of relativism does not arrive at any cultural or moral consensus. Normative relativism is an approach mainly adopted by the philosophers whereas anthropologists engage in descriptive relativism. Thus in descriptive relativism, description of the different thought process and the reasoning are made by the anthropologist but they do not provide the evaluation of the same. However, in case of normative relativism the philosophers concentrate more on the evaluation of the claims made through different reasoning or modes of thought. Thus the values of truth are defines through normative relativism on a much broader prospect. Therefore the essay aims to discuss the meaning of relativism and whether they are defensible. To analyse the study four types of relativism has been identified and the easy deals with moral relativism, moral relativism, cultural relativism and cognitive relativism. Each of the relativism has its own theory, believes and practises against the individuals and society as a whole. Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the philosophical theory which states that morality is relative and it holds different moral for different people. Moral relatives are further divided into two forms, ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism. Ethical subjectivism believes that morality is based on individual and cultural relativism is relative to culture. According to the theory of moral relativism it do not makes any sense to ask questions which are abstracts such as whether an act is good or bad. There seems to no badness or goodness in abstract it only exists in specified context. An act may be bad for one set of person whereas the same act may be seen to be right for another set of people. Thus if moral relativism is true one should not act whether the act is good or bad but only judge the act in a particular situation. Some tends to see moral relativism as obvious truth and undeniable whereas other views it as threatening the foundation on which the society is founded (Lukes, 2011, p. 14-23). For some moral relativism, it follows logically from cognitive relativism which tends to relativize the truth in general context. A common but negative reason for embracing moral relativism is the perceived ability of moral objectivism. A more defensible argument against social relativism is that it aims to promote tolerance as it encourages others to understand the different culture (IEP, 2012). There are three kinds of moral relativism, normal moral relativism where different people act as agents and are subject to different ultimate requirements; secondly, Moral Judgment Relativism where moral judgments tend to make implicit reference to speaker or other person, example like subjectivism. And finally it is the Meta Ethical Relativism, where there exist conflicting moral judgments on a particular case. According to Harman, one can hold either of the one while rejecting the other two. Emotivists might accept the Meta–ethical relativism and rejecting normal and moral judgment relativism; an existentialist who believes that people are subjected towards principle and accept the normative relativism but would reject the moral and Meta relativism. And relativistic ideal observer accepts the moral judgment and rejecting the normative and Meta ethical relativism. Harman’s argument for moral relativism is base on two assumptions, Assumption 1: A person has the reason to do something only if the person has reasoned the way of doing it. If a person has reason to comply with moral demands then it is applied to them whereas it is only applicable only if one is able to reason the way towards complying with them. Assumption 2: It reflects view about the abilities to reason the way adopted by an individual towards any decisions. Therefore based on the above two assumptions it can be said that different moral demands can be applied to different people all the time (MIT, 2009). Moral relativism is defensible as people who tend to believe in moral relativism have cited various proofs of believing the truth of moral relativism. The arguments based on disagreements holds that moral relativism only account for fact that different individuals as well as culture have different beliefs on moral values. Thus moral disagreement demonstrate that morality is a product of culture which is the claim made by the moral relativism. The argument from flexibility states that the alternatives of moral relativism which is moral absolutism breaks down in certain circumstances. However there are expectations to every rule of moral relativism such as lying, stealing and even severe act are justified morally. If there are no moral absolutes it is said then that moral relativism is true. The argument from tolerance usually suggest that moral relativism is consistent and based on the fact that one should be tolerate to those with whom one disagrees, mainly those from different background. Moral criticism is intolerant and do not give the permission to think that a particular culture is better than other relevant culture. One thus ought to be much more moral relativists (Moral Relativism, n.d). The main arguments for moral relativism need not be compatible. Some relativist assumes that value judgements are different from the factual judgements while others value the truth of both kinds of judgement relative to cultural framework. Arguments from Cultural Diversity Authors suggest that relativist often argues that different cultures have different believes towards the relativism view of morality. The fact of diversity does not entail moral relativism nor does it entail with respect to objectivism that it is false. Culture has different preference, for example in sports Brazilians plays soccer; Mongolians prefer horse racing and others. But it does not suggest that the difference in the preference of choice of game, are explained with the absence of a single objective that everyone should play. In order to be sure, objectivist need to explain why as to people seems to fail in discovering the true moral code. But taking into consideration the suspect which includes ignorance, tradition, habit, fear, unreason, and self interest along with other factors are equally possible. Therefore diversity has been able to prove little. The existence of many different religions does not further prove that no one can claim to be one true religion. Moral Relativism Promotes Tolerance Moral relativism promotes tolerance is a normative argument. Moral relativism encourages humility and getting aware of relative validity of owns moral norms which make an individual less likely to fall under arrogant ethnocentrism and not to pass any moral judgement on the practise and believes of other cultures. It is argued that moral relativism entails a normative relativism (IEP, 2012). Therefore based on the above evidence it can be said that moral relativism is defensible and it has been able to provide proof towards its defence. But with ethical relativism, majority of the arguments are against the theory so it can be said that ethical relativism are highly contradictory and cannot be defended. Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is defined as a position where there are no moral absolutes, no rights and wrongs but the right and wrong are based on some social norms. Situational ethics is one such case of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism means that moral of individuals have evolved and have changed with time and are no more absolute. An advantage of ethical relativism is that the ethical relativism allows a wide variety of culture and practices and allows people to adapt to it ethically as the knowledge, culture and technology change in the society (Slick, 2012). The arrangement includes that no moral absolutes, no right and wrong is ethical relativism. Many ethical relativists right and wrong are based on the social norms. People tend to differ from morally accepted grounds and vary from culture to culture. Ethical relativism usually requires need for understanding and tolerance of moral diversity and as per the ethical relativism one cannot judge moral of others when they do not understand the culture. Like everything else, morals also evolve and also changes with time. For example Slavery which was considered to be right in the 1800’s and with morals involvement, it has been regarded as morally wrong in the current era of generation. It has been argued by ethical relativism that it is morality that holds back culture and thus with multiple ideas culture falls apart. Ethical relativism can be summarized by stating that morals are expected to fit a culture and it can only be judged within the concerned culture without the interaction of others. It is inconsistent to state that some practice are right in one society and the same practice wrong in another society. If right and wrong are to have one common meaning they need to be used consistently. A modern day example of ethical relativism would be described as a situation where a person belongs to multiple cultures. A woman may be a Catholic and feminist belonging to different culture. Another example, the evolution of moral with respect to woman is seen as in the medieval period, woman were not given any rights which was considered to be morally right. But today woman has and maintains the same right as man and is accepted (BookRags, 2012). There are two main types of ethical relativism which are subjective ethical relativism and conventional ethical relativism. Both of the versions hold true to the fact that there exist no moral principles but human inventions. Subjective ethical relativism tends to boil down and form anarchistic individualism which is an essential denial of the interpersonal feature. The conventional ethical relativism contains interpersonal perspective fails to deal with the issue of reformer, defining culture and moral criticism. Unless the subject of moral objectivism makes a positive change in its position relativism tends to survive such criticisms (Pojman & Fieser, 2011). Sometime it is argued that moral believes are relative to culture. Certain practices like custom with respect to dressing sense depends on some local custom and other practices like torture, slavery may be governed through universal standards and wrongly judged despite of the other differences that exist among the cultures. One of the arguments against ethical relativism is that the universal moral standards which tend to exist even when moral believes and practices vary among the various cultures. Cultural difference can be acknowledging in moral practices and believes and still holds that some of the beliefs and practices tend to be morally wrong (Velasquez, 2010). The theory of ethical relativism is considered to be false as it contradicts itself. The theory states that there are no absolute truths but applying the theory of ethical relativism to ‘itself’ raises a question as is it always ethical for someone to believe in ethical relativism in order to advocate the ethical relativism. The diverse society shares an amount of common beliefs towards each member of the society. Different culture exists in different society and so the temperament is different in every society. The matter has never been investigated but they are likely of universal recurrence. However the small proportion of deviants in culture cannot be said to function of sure instinct through which the society has built it on fundamental sanities but as per the universal fact mankind tends to overcomes all the issues and stays happily (Benedict, n.d). In the long run moral relativism do not help when a tough situation arises be it at work, personal life. It is getting back to the basics, to rid back emotions as well as self interest, one needs to believe that there are moral relativism and no ethical relativism (Putnam, 2005). Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism is a theory which majorly concentrates on the nature of morality. Initially it seems quite plausible. But, like all other theories of relativism a rational analysis of it can be made. In cultural relativism condemning of the other culture should be stopped thereby adapting a broader outlook towards different cultural framework. A simple test is generally conducted by the cultural relativism helps in determining what is right and what is wrong. For this, the action of the individual is required to be determined as to whether they are in accordance with the code of the respective society of the concerned individual. This helps us in finding ways that would result in improving the code of our society, so much so, that cultural relativism forbids individuals from criticizing the codes of other society (Rachels, 1999, pp.1-5). Cultural relativism is a complex concept that has its intellectual roots in the concept of relativism which is both a philosophy of science as well as language. The concept of relativism is a complete contrast against realism, which is the idea that the real and truth is an independent existence of mind. In cultural relativism provides a critical as well as reflexive tool for the political, sociological and moral conservatives tend to despair over the influence of cultural relativism on intellectual though and shift away from the objective and the identifiable standards as the measure for all truth-claims. However, the adoption of the cultural relativism does not abandon the idea of commitment towards universal standards or to the human rights. Cultural relativism is a celebration for the poststructuralists and postmodernists. However, it is viewed negatively by the moral conservatives who consider cultural relativism as degradation of the moral obligations. In many instances cultural relativism is seen as an ethical dimension which neutralizes people’s ability in criticizing the practices and beliefs of other culture. Moreover, an individual’s sense of reality stems from the way the cultural framework is presented to the mankind. There, language plays an essential role in cultural relativism, as language is a prime means of categorizing which finally leads to experience, constructing and what finally leads to the active shaping of reality (Howson, 2009, pp.1-5). From an analytical perspective the argument that can be placed and distinguished along two areas, i.e., dimensions of intensity and extent. In its broadest form, cultural relativism extends to all manifestations to human existence. Contrarily in the narrowest form the conceptualization of cultural relativism is relevant only from the aspect of ethics and aesthetics of human life and irrelevant to knowledge (Weiler, n.d., p.1). The cultural relativism is dependent on the respect and tolerance for the difference with respect to the cultural context which is critical to the understanding of people’s beliefs, values and practices. Strong cultural relativism holds that culture is the principal source of validity towards rule or moral right. However, it is presumed that the moral rules, social practices and values are determined culturally but the universal nature and rights of human beings serves as a check on the potential excess of relativism. At its distant extreme, strong cultural relativism, short of radical relativism would accept number of basic rights with virtually universal application. At the same time it would allow a wide variation ranging for majority of the rights which may lead to two entirely justifiable sets overlapping slightly. Based on the strong and weak cultural relativism the mere use of the quantitative measures of relativism should not be used. Qualitative judgments based on the significance of different culture variations must be incorporated so as to increase the defensibility of cultural relativism. The impact of culture on the shaping of individuals is systematic in nature and may lead to the prominence of distinctive social types in different culture. For example, the caste system and the chattel slavery, which implicitly in denial with the existence of common humanity, are strictly condemned even in most rigid class societies. However, the basic moral distinction between outsiders and insiders has been seriously eroded by the increase in the individual mobility and by aspirational commitment to the idea of human moral community. With the existence of cultural community and tradition, the arguments of cultural relativism that are based on the principal of self determination of individuals provides a strong defence against the interference which includes disruptions generally caused by the introduction of the universal human rights. In traditional cultures readily justifies the cultural deviation from the international human rights standards. In traditional cultures, practices and communal customs usually provides individuals with the place in the society and a certain amount of protection and dignity. However the reciprocal bonds between the different classes provide the base for the defensibility of the cultural relativism (Donnelly, 1984, pp.402-413). Cognitive Relativism Cognitive relativism stresses on the relativity of truth. Due to the close relation between the concept of truth and concepts such as rationality, knowledge and justification, the cognitive relativism often taken to encompass the relativity of other notions too. According to Westacott (1998), cognitive relativism points out that relativity of knowledge needs to be understood as a version of epistemological relativism or as entitled by it. The cognitive relativism can take different forms based on the nature of the standpoint to which the truth is revitalized. The cognitive relativism gains creditability with the increase in the sharp logical dichotomy between values and facts. It is one of the narrowly delineated forms of relativism where ontology is relativised to categorical frameworks, conceptual scheme or scientific paradigms. The rationale underlying this concept is that the world does not present itself as ready-carved; rather we supply different and at times incompatible ways of conceptualizing and categorizing it. The motivation behind this type of relativism is hardly drawn from impulses informing cultural relativism. The refection that makes a connection between the world and the mind rather than the empirical observations of cultural and historic diversity, is the engine that drives the various forms of cognitive relativism. Cognitive relativism is attacked by the critics mainly on three grounds, arguing that it is theoretically incoherent, pernicious or not practically viable. They hold the relativistic concept of rationality and truth to be theoretically incoherent because it is self-refuting. They deny that cognitive relativism is an outlook one can think and live by on the grounds of undermining the notion of intellectual autonomy. The argument put forward is like skepticism, cognitive relativism inevitably has a corrosive effect on the commitment towards unending yet noble quest o attain the objective truth so as to realize better forms of life. Cognitive relativism is best understood on the basis of two principal claims, i.e., the value of truth related to any judgment is relative to any particular standpoint and metaphysically privilege is not provided to any standpoint over all others. However, cognitive relativism is a theory that is based on the epistemic codes. It rests on the idea that existence of a stand point is not possible which can prove itself superior to the rest of the existing standpoints. So as to dismiss the entire standpoint except one in the preemptory manner because they are not endorsed by majority of the members of a certain community would seem to be the strategy of someone who readily accepts this idea, or at least is unable to argue against it (Westacott, 1998, pp.1-5). The cognitive relativism, like skepticism is far easier to despise than to refute convincingly, for two main reasons. Firstly it has an unclear definition so the point where the concept of relativism leaves off cannot be detected and other view, such as subjectivism or skepticism begins. Secondly, the grounds of cognitive relativism are unclear, which can make it hard to know how to attack it or whether we have dismantled all the ways of supporting it. The case of cognitive relativism involves one form of skepticism which cannot be satisfactorily defeated unless the skeptical resource upon which it is drawn is simultaneously denied. This cannot however be achieved until the beliefs lying deep in the heart of mainstream epistemological thought is challenged (Luper, 2004, pp.1-10). For practicing the defensibility of cognitive relativism, as Bayley (1992) states that assertion on the truth is based on the theory of relativism and is very essential, so as to assert the theory of cognitive relativism is required in support of the contradiction which will be hence placed, the act of arguing is necessary in the performative contradiction and lastly the act of persuasion has to be put to practice so as to make the cognitive relativism defensible. However, the postpositive claims are encouraged by the cognitive relativism which includes the belief that the scientific truth is what the majority of the individuals. Individuals believe in the truth that is supported with facts and has scientific reason behind the same. If the truth , knowledge or objectivity lied outside the parochial beliefs of a particular class of people, then the scope for testing the value proposition gets restricted resulting in the acceptance of the common belief and practice in particular place and times (Bayley, 1992, p.148). However, the radical relativism being on the rise may lead to increase in the complexities of the world. Thus the lack of the cognitive tools required to cope with the cacophony of the contradictory information to which the general mass is being continuously exposed could be stopped by the implementation of the same. Though cognitive relativism can be defensible but not in all perspectives of life as the cognitive relativism which is closely related to the existence of truth, needs to be strongly supported by scientific tests failing which its relevance cannot be justified (Stein & Dawson-Tunik, 2004, pp. 2-5). Conclusion Therefore it can be concluded that what is true, real and what factors are moral varies from individuals to individuals and also from culture to culture. There exists no word such as fact or truth as what is true for one person in his culture might be the opposite for another person in different culture. People seem to have different beliefs at different time and also different place with regards to morality and truth. Thus what actually is moral or immoral, true or false differs from culture and people. Reference Bayley J. E., 1992. Aspects of Relativism: Moral, Cognitive, and Literary. United States: University Press of America. BENEDICT, R., No Date. A Defense of Ethical Relativism. [Pdf]. Available at: < http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/heathwood/pdf/benedict_relativism.pdf> [Accessed 22 August 2012]. BookRags, 2012. Ethical Relativism. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 22 August 2012]. Donnelly J., 1984. Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 6 (4): 400-419. Howson A., 2009. Cultural Relativism. [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed on: 21 August]. IEP, 2012. Moral Relativism. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 22 August 2012]. Lukes, S., 2011. Moral Relativism. Profile Books. Luper S., 2004. Epistemic Relativism. [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed on: 22 August 2012]. MIT, 2009. What Is Moral Relativism? [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed 22 August 2012]. Moral Relativism, No Date. Moral Relativism: Is Morality Relative to Individuals or Cultures? [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 22 Aug. 12]. Pojman, L. P. & Fieser, J., 2011. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. USA: Cengage Learning. Putnam, M. S., 2005. Absolutes and Ethical Relativism in the Workplace. [Online]. Available at: < http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/articles/absolutesandrelativisim.htm> [Accessed 22 August 2012]. Rachels J., 1999. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed on: 22 August 2012]. Slick, M., 2012. Ethical Relativism. [Online]. Available at: < http://carm.org/ethical-relativism> [Accessed 21 August 2012]. Stein Z. & Dawson-Tunik T. L., 2004. “It’s all good”: Moral Relativism and the Millennial Mind. [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed on: 22 August 2012]. Velasquez, M. et al., 2010. Ethical Relativism. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 22 August 2012]. Weiler B., n.d. Cultural relativism. [Pdf]. Available at: [Accessed on: 22 August 2012]. Westacott E., 1998. On the Motivations for Relativism, Alfred University, Vol.12 (3): 1-16. Read More