The Polemics of Cultural Relativism
... what we ought to do. In other words, they seem to be prescriptive in nature. Cultural relativism would say that a culture would be able to hold its own moral beliefs without criticizing and judging other cultures that do not hold those intuitions. The strength of cultural relativism lies in the fact there is no pressure on us to incorporate others to follow our moral principles and vice versa. The sixth proposition made by the cultural relativist best describes this stating: “We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures”. This strength is perhaps precisely the element that raises certain disputes on the matter. This is because there are certain acts deemed unacceptable no matter what culture it is being viewed from such as ethnic cleansing, slavery and neglect of children. Hence, in my opinion, this tolerance of customs of a particular culture should end when they go in strict abuse of human rights. This is perhaps where cultural relativism as a whole seems to produce certain limitations and gives light to its weakness. A more formalized weakness found in cultural relativism is from the Cultural Differences Argument delineated by Rachels. In general, it states that different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective standard in morality. Rather, the moral order of a society determines what is right and wrong within that society. It is merely matters of opinion that differ from culture to culture. Rachels argues that although the argument seems attractive at first, it is not plausible. His main point is that cultural relativists use specific facts about cultural differences to arrive at a conclusion of about the status of morality as a whole. Moreover, from a logical point of view, the argument is not sound because “The conclusion does not really follow from the premise” despite the fact that it may nevertheless be true. In specific, the premise shows the beliefs of people where as the conclusion shows us “What really is the case.” Thus the question raised is that just from the mere disagreement between two cultures, such as the Greeks and Callatians, can one say that there is no objective truth? Rachels answers this by emphasizing that the practice could be objectively right or wrong but that one of the cultures was mistaken and unaware of the complete truth. However, the argument of objectivity infiltrates into our fallibility as humans of judging other cultures from our own perspectives that had for the most part been inculcated in us from birth and based upon our upbringing. This is perhaps why one might feel that there are no ‘strict’ universal morals and that different people see the world differently. At the same time, one might argue that is cultural conditioning so powerful that one cannot break free from it? In addition, do we consider that the morals of that particular culture are perfect? If one denies this then they have shown that moral standards are perhaps not based upon culture but on a much higher underlying principle that transcends our own society. If one accepts it, then “We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.” This is in fact the first of three consequences Rachel considers for taking cultural relativism seriously. The essence of the first consequence really is that we would no longer condemn other societies just because their customs are different from our own. One might say that this would make cultural relativism more appealing and acceptable as a theory because it allows for transparency and respect for between different cultures. Yet Rachels is careful to point out that failing to condemn certain practices such as slavery and anti-Semitism would seem “Wrong wherever they occur” and intrinsically detrimental to any society. The second consequence of accepting cultural relativism as a genuine theory states that “We could decide whether actions are right or wrong by just consulting the standards of our society.” This has disturbing implications for cultural relativism because, as was mentioned before, few of us deem our society’s moral code to be perfect and hence much room for improvement remains. Moreover, the structure of cultural relativism, however, would not only impede us from making judgments about other cultures but also stop us from criticizing our very own society. In effect, the way cultural relativism is shaped from destroying criticism renders the final consequence of acknowledging it as a correct theory. With cultural relativism, the “Idea of moral progress is called into doubt.” Rachels argues that the societies have for the most part in certain ways such as the emergence of the ‘active’ women in societal affairs. But if we were to accept cultural relativism as true, Rachel adds, then with what standard would be able to measure progress? Thus Cultural relativi...