Review Of "The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism"

Introduction

In this article, the author explores the major meta-ethical theory of Cultural Relativism.

According to it, Cultural Relativism states that all morality is relative to culture, that

the truth of ethical claims is relative to an individual or group's perspective. Cultural

Relativism holds that an action is morally right or morally wrong because of the beliefs

and values of the culture in which the action takes place. Therefore cultural relativism

denies the possibility of any objective foundation for moral rules or obligations.

Comments

In the sections 2.1 and 2.2 The author defines what Cultural Relativism is all about by

giving us a glimpse of different cultural practices form more accepted funeral

cremation by Greeks to barbaric (to us) flesh eating practice of Callatians to going

against our institution of marriage Eskimo practices or polygamy and "wife swapping".

The third section considers one argument in support of cultural relativism and then

offers objections to that argument.

She goes on setting up 6 claims of Cultural Relativism:

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.

With rules 4 and 5 more essential for Cultural Relativism definition then others. At this

point she doesn't say whether Cultural Relativism is a valuable theory or not, she

merely sets it up as an argument to be researched. In the section 2.3. she goes into

restating rules 4 and 5 from above section and dismantles its "plausible enough logic"

by trying to show that although the view itself may sound plausible enough, it is

actually incompatible with many other things that people commonly believe. She says

that Cultural Relativism argument turns to be fallacious and proves nothing.

The section 2.4 goes in to "attack mode" on taking Cultural Relativism seriously by

researching 3 of those consequences:

1) According to CR we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. So we could not say that 1940s Nazi wiping off Jews or 1970s racism in South Africa is morally wrong. Doesn't ring true, huh?

2) All advocates or social changes are wrong, according to 2nd CR rule, that one should determine wrong by consulting ones society norms. So according to it no one should have abolished slavery or racism. Another bad one!

3) If CR is true there is no reason for moral progress. Therefore women should still be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen". I can just see that one falling through!

So, the author successfully wins this argument, but in the section 2.5. goes on

researching that customs and norms result both from values, factual beliefs and

constrains of life forces in a given situation. Sometimes, a difference in norms can

appear to indicate a difference in values but actually reflects only a difference in factual

beliefs and situational context. So, if there is no apparent differences in moral values

the theory of Cultural Relativism is further corroded.

In section 2.6, the author points out that cultures cannot exist