Rachels Arguments Against Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another culture. This concept has been a topic of debate among scholars, philosophers, and anthropologists for decades. In his essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," James Rachels presents several compelling arguments against cultural relativism, challenging the notion that all cultural practices are equally valid. This essay will explore Rachels' arguments and provide evidence to support his claims.

Rachels argues that cultural relativism leads to the acceptance of practices that are morally wrong, as it implies that all cultural practices are equally valid and worthy of respect. He illustrates this point by discussing the case of the Callatians, a tribe that practiced the ritual of killing their elderly members once they reached a certain age. According to cultural relativism, this practice should be considered acceptable because it is a part of the Callatian culture. However, Rachels contends that this is a clear example of a morally reprehensible practice, regardless of cultural context. He states, "The cultural differences argument implies that we should be tolerant of the practices of others. But it does not imply that we should be tolerant of everything done by others. It does not imply, for example, that we should be tolerant of genocide or terrorism" (Rachels, 2008). This argument highlights the flaws of cultural relativism, as it fails to provide a basis for condemning practices that are universally considered immoral.

Furthermore, Rachels refutes the idea that there are no universal moral standards, arguing that there are certain moral principles that are shared by all cultures. He points to the existence of cross-cultural agreements on basic moral principles, such as the prohibition of murder and the recognition of the importance of truth-telling. Rachels argues that these universal moral principles undermine the relativist claim that all moral beliefs are culturally determined. He states, "If we look at the actual beliefs and practices of different cultures, we find that there are many moral rules on which they do not agree. But this is not to say that there are no moral rules on which they do agree. In fact, there are some moral rules that are nearly universal" (Rachels, 2008). This assertion challenges the relativist position by demonstrating that there are certain moral principles that transcend cultural boundaries.

Additionally, Rachels argues that cultural relativism is self-defeating, as it undermines the possibility of criticizing other cultures for their practices. He contends that if we accept cultural relativism, then we cannot condemn practices such as slavery, female genital mutilation, or child labor, as they are deeply ingrained in certain cultures. This, Rachels argues, leads to the absurd conclusion that we should remain neutral on all cultural practices, regardless of their moral implications. He states, "If cultural relativism were true, then we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. This would mean, of course, that we could no longer criticize the practice of apartheid in South Africa, which would be absurd" (Rachels, 2008). This argument exposes the paradoxical nature of cultural relativism, as it prevents us from condemning harmful practices in other cultures.

James Rachels presents compelling arguments against cultural relativism, challenging the idea that all cultural practices are equally valid. He demonstrates that cultural relativism leads to the acceptance of morally reprehensible practices, undermines the existence of universal moral standards, and is self-defeating in its implications. While cultural relativism has been a prominent concept in anthropology and ethics, Rachels' arguments shed light on the limitations and flaws of this perspective, urging us to critically evaluate cultural practices based on universal moral principles.