Themes: Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism is a philosophical concept that suggests moral and ethical values are not universal but are instead shaped by cultural beliefs. This perspective challenges the idea of objective moral truths, proposing that each culture's moral code is valid within its own context. Cultural Relativism encourages tolerance and understanding, as it acknowledges that different cultures have different values and practices. However, it also raises questions about the limits of tolerance and the possibility of objective moral standards.
James Rachels critiques Cultural Relativism by highlighting its implications. He argues that if Cultural Relativism were true, it would be impossible to criticize practices like slavery or discrimination, as these would be judged solely by the cultural norms in which they exist. Rachels points out that this view makes moral progress incoherent, as it suggests that practices are only right or wrong relative to their cultural context. He also notes that disagreements over cultural practices do not necessarily imply there is no objective truth.
Cultural Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. It says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many.
Here, then, is the standard that might most reasonably be used in thinking about [genital mutilation]: We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it.
And, as a corollary, we may ask if there is an alternative set of social arrangements that would do a better job of promoting their welfare. If so, we may conclude that the existing practice is deficient.
Rachels suggests that while some cultural disagreements are indeed relative, not all practices are entirely subjective. He argues for rational standards to judge cultural practices, emphasizing the welfare of individuals. This approach allows for criticism of harmful practices while recognizing the diversity of cultural values.
The debate between Cultural Relativism and essentialism further illustrates the complexity of this philosophical issue. Cultural Relativism posits that values are culturally dependent, while essentialism is often criticized for assuming absolute truths. The challenge lies in finding a balance between respecting cultural differences and acknowledging universal human rights.
Cultural Relativism promotes appreciation and tolerance of different cultures by discouraging judgment based on one's cultural norms. However, it also faces criticism for potentially excusing harmful practices. The philosophy encourages open-mindedness and reassessment of beliefs, but it must also grapple with the need for objective standards in addressing human rights violations.
Expert Q&A
What is cultural relativism? What are its pros and cons?
Cultural relativism is the philosophical approach that suggests moral and ethical judgments are culture-specific and should not be universally applied. Its main advantage is fostering cultural tolerance and appreciation by acknowledging that values are often culturally based. However, it faces criticism for potentially justifying harmful practices, as it implies all cultural norms are equally valid. This can lead to moral ambiguity, as it may prevent condemning practices that violate basic human rights.
What is the difference between cultural relativism and essentialism?
Cultural relativism asserts that moral and ethical values are culturally dependent, implying that practices considered wrong in one culture may be acceptable in another. It emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural context without imposing external judgments. In contrast, essentialism posits that things have a fundamental essence or quality that defines them, suggesting that certain truths or values, such as the immorality of murder, are universal and not contingent on cultural differences.
Is postmodern feminism, which questions all universal statements in science and ethics, a form of cognitive relativism?
Claims of universality and objective truth in science, ethics, mathematics, and philosophy are contested as a matter of principle by the overlapping, though sometimes divergent, movements of feminism and postmodernism. These theorists point to the impossibility of any system to achieve pure knowledge that transcends the body and surpasses subjectivity. Moreover, feminist theory strives to bring an awareness to the sciences so that they may be improved, not disavowed.
How did Plato react to relativism?
Plato rejected relativism by asserting the existence of an absolute realm of Forms, which are unchanging and eternal, contrasting with the transitory and limited physical world. In "Theaetetus," he refutes Protagoras's relativistic view that "man is the measure of all things," arguing that individual perceptions can be flawed and that knowledge requires stability, unlike the ever-changing world of perceptions. Thus, Plato maintained that true knowledge transcends subjective experiences.
What argument represents the thinking behind Protagoras's view that "man is the measure of all things" in Plato's Theaetetus?
Protagoras's view that "man is the measure of all things" suggests that truth is relative to individual perceptions. In Plato's Theaetetus, Socrates challenges this relativism by arguing that personal perceptions, like those influenced by illness or cultural differences, are unreliable measures of truth. Plato advocates for objective truth over subjective interpretation. Despite critiques, some defend relativism, noting differences in cultural perspectives and personal experiences, such as temperature perception, support subjective truth.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.