The Central Theme of Moral (cultural) Relativism

Moral (Cultural) Relativism is a significant philosophical concept that posits that moral values and judgments are shaped by cultural contexts. At its core, this theory suggests that what is considered morally acceptable in one culture may be entirely unacceptable in another. The implications of this viewpoint lead to a deeper understanding of cultural practices and ethical standards, highlighting the diversity of moral codes across societies.

The Essence of Moral Relativism

The foundation of Moral Relativism lies in the assertion that no single moral code holds superiority over another. According to Rachels, morality is inherently subjective, shaped by cultural norms and beliefs. This leads to the conclusion that moral judgments are not universal; rather, they reflect the values of specific cultures. As Rachels states, "Actions are deemed right or wrong based on the cultural context in which they occur" (Rachels, p.21). This perspective invites us to explore various cultural practices without imposing our own ethical standards.

Examples Supporting Moral Relativism

Rachels provides compelling examples of cultural differences that illustrate the essence of Moral Relativism. One of the most notable examples is the contrasting views on death between the Greeks and the Callatians. While the Greeks practiced cremation, the Callatians engaged in the ritual of consuming their deceased fathers' bodies. When King Darius of Persia posed the question to both cultures about their practices, each was horrified by the other's customs. This demonstrates how moral beliefs can differ drastically between societies, reinforcing the idea that moral judgments are culturally bound (Rachels, p.22).

Another poignant example is found in the practices of the Eskimos, where infanticide was accepted under certain circumstances. Eskimo culture allowed men to share wives, and the killing of newborns was not uncommon, particularly for female infants. In stark contrast, American culture views infanticide as a grave moral wrong. This divergence illustrates how moral frameworks are not only varied but also deeply rooted in cultural contexts (Rachels, p.23).

The Cultural Differences Argument

The Cultural Differences Argument serves as a pivotal point in the discussion of Moral Relativism. This argument posits that because different cultures have differing moral codes, there cannot be an objective truth in morality. Rachels notes that this argument is derived from the observation that moral beliefs vary significantly across societies (Rachels, p.23). The implication is that actions deemed morally acceptable in one culture may be condemned in another, leading to the conclusion that moral standards are relative rather than absolute.

Critique of the Cultural Differences Argument

While the Cultural Differences Argument offers a framework for understanding moral variability, Rachels identifies a significant logical flaw within it. The flaw lies in the premise that differing opinions among cultures imply the absence of objective moral truths. Rachels argues that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise, as the existence of disagreement does not negate the possibility of universal moral truths (Rachels, p.24).

For instance, the debate over the shape of the Earth serves as an analogy. Some cultures historically believed the Earth was flat while others recognized it as spherical. This disagreement does not undermine the objective reality of the Earth's shape. Similarly, the existence of moral disagreement across cultures does not inherently deny the existence of objective moral standards (Rachels, p.24).

Implications of Moral Relativism

If Moral Relativism were entirely true, it would lead to several troubling implications. Firstly, it would prevent us from condemning practices that are widely recognized as injustices, such as slavery or discrimination. Under a relativist framework, such practices could be considered acceptable merely because they align with the cultural norms of a particular society (Rachels, p.25).

Furthermore, Moral Relativism would inhibit moral progress. Historical movements, such as the fight for civil rights led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., would be viewed through a relativist lens as morally neutral, despite their significant contributions to ethical advancement. The idea that social reformers could challenge their own society's norms would be undermined, as it would suggest that no moral framework is inherently superior (Rachels, p.26).

Table: Cultural Practices and Moral Perspectives

Conclusion

The examination of Moral (Cultural) Relativism reveals both its merits and shortcomings. While it provides valuable insight into the diversity of moral codes across cultures, it ultimately falters under scrutiny due to its logical inconsistencies. The Cultural Differences Argument, while compelling, fails to establish a definitive stance on the existence of objective moral truths. By acknowledging these flaws, we can better appreciate the complexities of morality and the importance of striving for universal ethical standards that promote justice and equality.

References:

• Rachels, J. (Year). Title of the Book. Publisher.