“THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVIS,”

“THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM,”

From James Rachels’ Elements of Moral Philosophy, 1999

1. How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes

The Callatians customarily ate the bodies of their dead fathers… the Greeks

practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way

to dispose of the dead…

…Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one

group may be utterly abhorrent to the members of another group, and vice versa.

…Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have been accustomed to the

idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If we

assume that our ideas of right and wrong will be shared by all peoples at all

times, we are merely naive.

Note: The form of the argument goes from observations about the differences of practices or values to a conclusion about the status of all morality. Rachels will argue both that the argument is invalid and the conclusion is false.

2. Cultural Relativism

To many thinkers, this observation – “Different cultures have different moral codes” – has seemed to be the key to understanding morality. The idea of universal truth in ethics, they say, is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that exist.

The "right" way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed

down. The notion of right is in the folkways.

1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.

Notes: These 6 claims are all claims made by various cultural relativists, but do not necessarily depend on each other. Some may turn out to be true, some false. We will now look at the main argument for accepting the claims of cultural relativism…

3. The Cultural Differences Argument

(P)1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise – that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false.

The fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences argument is that it intends

to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people

disagree about it.

Notes: Flatness/roundness of the earth example should help you see this mistake.

Of course, we can add a (P) to the above invalid argument and make it valid, so it would now look something like this:

(P)1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

(P)2. If different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no moral objective

“truth”.

matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

However, although valid, this obviously doesn’t guarantee the conclusion to be true, as P(1) or P(2) – or both -- may be false. Rachels will question P(1) in 5 and 6 and P(2) in 7.

4. The (Three) Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously

Note: Although James considers the argument from Cultural Differences to be invalid, Relativism may still be true. Assuming its true, then ….

1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.

Suppose a society was violently anti-Semitic and its leaders set out to destroy the

Jews. Cultural relativism would preclude us from saying that this practice is

wrong….

2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society.

This implication …is disturbing because few of us think that our society’s code is perfect; we can think of ways it might be improved…

3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

Notes: If progress means replacing a way of doing things with a better way, what criterion is there for judging what is better? Limits the idea of reform

Do we really want to give up the ability to make any transcultural judgments? The cultural relativist cannot condemn slavery, anti-Semitism, etc.

5. Why There Is Less (Moral) Disagreement Than It Seems

Many factors work together to produce the customs of a society … We cannot

conclude, then, merely because customs differ, but there is a disagreement about

values.

Among the Eskimos, infanticide does not signal a fundamentally different

attitude toward children. Instead, is a recognition that drastic measures are

sometimes needed to insure the family’s survival. The Eskimos values are not

all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices

that we do not have to make.

Note: This is the same strategy that the narrator took in our last article in response to Palamedes in 2 and 3, -- that any apparent moral differences could

(2) just be because of non-moral practices or beliefs.

(3) just be influenced by empirical differences (circumstance, environment, etc.).

6. How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common

In any complex society there must be a presumption in favor of truthfulness …

The prohibition of murderer is a necessary feature of all societies …There are some of moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist

Notes: This is similar to the first strategy of the narrator to Palamedes – highlight customs/morals that are in common rather than different. Rachels argues for three – protection of children (even Eskimos), truth telling, and the prohibition of murder. Rachels says that these are universal moral rules (although they may be worked out in different ways).

7. Judging a Cultural Practice to be Immoral – we will skip this section for now.

8. What Can be Learned from Cultural Relativism

Rachels identifies two:

1.Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all

our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not.

Many (but not all) of our practices are merely peculiar to our society, and it is

easy to lose sight of that fact.

2.The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind … we can come to understand that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth – they may be nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning.

Note: (Doesn’t mean all or none are.) We want to avoid the error that Herodotus points out:

For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from

amongst all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought best,

he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose

that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native

customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.