Rachels, Ch 2: Cultural Relativism
Possible interpretations of Cultural Relativism January 18, 2006
- One: Different cultures have different moral codes and beliefs
- A factual claim that is obviously true
- Eskimos (infants and the elderly); Greeks and Callatians on burial
practices
- Two: There is no objective truth in morality; there are no right
answers to moral questions; that is, no moral questions have (unique)
right answers
- This is a controversial claim about the nature of morality; a claim that
Rachels calls ethical subjectivism in Ch. 3.
- The cultural differences argument for #2: (Claims that #1 entails
#2)
- Premise: Different cultures have different moral codes (#1
above)
- Conclusion: Therefore, there are no objective truths in
morality; no right answers to moral questions; right/wrong are
mere matters of opinion that vary between cultures/groups (#2
above)
- Rachels criticisms of the cultural differences argument:
- Unsound argument; That people disagree about the right
answer to a question, doesn't show that there is no right
answers to that question
- Flat earth society, cause of disease, home run record
- That this argument for #2 is faulty doesn't show that 2 isn't true, only
that this argument hasn't show that it is true. Maybe there are no
right answers to moral questions, but the mere fact people disagree
about the answers to moral questions doesn't show this.
- Consider this faulty (invalid) argument with a true conclusion
- Nigeria has a very large population
- Therefore, Islamic courts in Nigeria have sentenced
women who have sex outside of marriage to be stoned to
death
- Three: What is right for a society is determined by whatever its moral
code says is right
- Let's use this as our definition of cultural relativism (CR)
- Rachels criticizes 3 by pointing out what he takes to be its "unhappy
consequences" of this version of CR
- Unhappy consequences of CR:
- CR entails that one can't say other cultures or cultural practices
are morally inferior (or superior) to ours; no way to judge
between two societies that one is better than another in a
certain respects
- CR entails that we should decide what is right or wrong by
consulting our society's standards; this entails that our (every)
(consistent) society is perfect and that criticism of a society
that lives up to its ideals is always mistaken
- CR entails that social reformers are automatically mistaken
- Martin Luther King's critique of American society at the
time was a mistake according to CR
- CR makes moral progress (of a culture's standards) is
impossible; progress/improvement/better implies a
transcultural standard and there is none
- Four: There are no universally accepted moral rules or universally
shared moral values
- Rachels thinks there is much less disagreement in morality than it
seems
- Often what look to be moral disagreements are not
disagreements about values but about facts: Permissible or not
to eat cows example is really a disagreement in beliefs about
facts and not about values
- All cultures must share some common values; no group could
survive unless it
- Valued its young
- Had a presumption in favor of truth telling
- Had a prohibition against murder
- Five: There are no universally applicable moral rules or moral values
- Difference between accepting a rule and whether or not it applies to
you
- Notice that all cultures share common values doesn't show that these
values necessarily apply to that culture
- Six: It is arrogant and intolerant to judge the behavior of other
cultures
- Rachels thinks we can learn some things from CR; What is right
about cultural relativism
- Dangerous to assume all our values are based on absolute
rational standard; sometimes what we think is objectively right
and wrong may be mere social conventions (e.g., women
covering breasts)
- CR helps us keep our minds open, avoid arrogance, and see
that sometimes our moral beliefs may only be cultural
prejudices; Sometimes strong feelings may have no rational
grounds and may be mere cultural conditioning
- CR starts with good insight that many practices are mere cultural
products and falsely concludes they all must be
- Should we always be tolerant? Is it always arrogant to judge another
or another culture?
- Is it arrogant to be "intolerant" and judge that excision is wrong
or that it is wrong to stone to death women who have babies
outside of marriage?
- Difference between judging that another culture's practices are
wrong and believing it permissible to intervene in that culture
and change the practice
- Seven: There are no exception-less general moral rules; any moral rule
has circumstances under which it is permissible to break it
- Generally true if a contextualist and not absolutist about moral rules,
but ....
- Candidates for absolute moral rules (?): Torture is wrong. Torturing
babies is wrong. Torturing babies for fun is wrong. Do the right
thing.
- Eight: What is right or wrong depends on the situation or
circumstances (contextual relativism)
- Lying, pollution examples.
- This is very different from CR (3 above). That different cultural
contexts can change what is right and wrong, not same as culture's
beliefs making it right or wrong.
- Nine: There are no cultural neutral standards of right and wrong
- Consider this potentially cultural neutral standard: A practice or rule
that promotes the welfare of the people affected by it is a good one
and such practices or rules that hinder the people's welfare are bad
ones