An Introduction to The Concept of Cultural Relativism

Introduction

Cultural Relativism basically states that different cultures have different moral codes. The customs of different societies are all that exist, and no independent standard of right and wrong can be imposed.

An Introduction to The Concept of Cultural Relativism

Anthropologist Ruth Benedict argues that studying the cultural practices of different groups of people supports what is and what isn’t behaviorally normal is determined by the culture. She suggests that “it is morally” and “it is habitual” should be synonymous terms. In this theory she suggests, murder, homosexuality, and other behaviors are perfectly acceptable when they fit into the habits, or morals, of the particular culture. As a matter of fact, those who don’t abide by these behaviors may have betrayed their culture and be considered abnormal no matter how good they would be perceived to be in a contrasting culture (Benedict, 1934).

Criticism of Cultural Relativism

Professor of philosophy James Rachels is critical of cultural relativism. Rachels argues that there are good reasons for rejecting this moral theory. He first states in logical reasoning, that one culture can state something is right, such as murder, while another culture states murder is wrong. Logically, the conclusion is that murder is neither right nor wrong; it is a matter of opinion. This makes cultural relativism an unsound premise (Rachels, 1986). Furthermore, if taking cultural relativism seriously, we can no longer say that other societies’ cultures are inferior to ours. This could potentially halt any form of constructive criticism or dialogue between cultures, leading to stagnation.

Lastly, we could consult the standards of our society to decide whether actions are right or wrong, and the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt. This raises the question of whether any culture could ever improve or evolve morally if all standards are viewed as equally valid.

Personal Perspective

My own personal moral belief has to lean more towards Professor Rachels' belief. If cultural beliefs were allowed to drive the entire moral code of the planet, we would be in a huge mess. While minor things such as shaving your head or never cutting your hair, or believing that it is right to eat meat or living by a standard of never eating meat, would be mostly irrelevant to the human race as a whole, things such as murder, slavery, rape, etc., could be devastating to society. If people were generally allowed to run amok driven by clashing cultural beliefs, we would exterminate ourselves quickly. There have to be some standards or universal rules that govern the major morals of each culture.

Conclusion

Those major universal standards on topics such as murder, slavery, rape, lying, stealing, etc., would have to span across all cultures; otherwise, people would live isolated and in constant fear of other people. They would constantly fear that coming in contact with another person would subject them to any number of, what we consider crimes, with no punishment induced because there would be no way to say that the person committed the crime because it was a normal part of their respective culture or not. A society without rules would not be a society. A balanced approach, acknowledging the value of cultural diversity while upholding universal human rights, could foster both understanding and progress.

References

Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Rachels, J. (1986). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.