James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” is a critique of Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the idea that there is no such thing as universal truths in ethics; rather there are only various cultural codes. Rachels begins by addressing the idea of cultural relativism and the cultural differences argument. The cultural differences argument looks at the Greeks and Callations example. The Callations believed it was right to eat the dead and the Greeks believed it was wrong. Rachels states that Cultural Relativists would say eating the dead is neither objectively right nor wrong because eating the dead is a matter of opinion. Rachels argues that this argument is not valid because the premise simply does not follow the conclusion. He then looks at the claim that in some societies people believe the Earth is a sphere. Rachels argues that this does not follow the cultural differences argument because there is simply no objective truth in geography. There cannot be objective truth to everything, therefore peoples believes can be wrong.
Rachels next step in disproving the Cultural Relativism theory looks at what happens if we take the argument too seriously. He first states that we could no longer say the customs of our society are morally better than others. This means we would no longer be able to criticize other practices or say they were wrong. Rachels then states that we could decide whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our own society. So to determine right from wrong, one has to ask whether the action is in accordance with ones cultural code. This idea would forbid us from criticizing our own cultural codes. Lastly, all moral progress would be called into doubt. Under Cultural Relativism, social reform cannot be judged by the standards of different times. This type of social reform means reformers would be unable to challenge ideals of the society because the society’s ideals are always correct. Therefore, social reform does not work under Cultural Relativism.
Rachels states that what we often think are dramatic cultural differences, do not differ nearly as much as we thought. This is the idea that most cultures have the same values. The only difference then lies in their beliefs and application of them. A really good example of this was the Eskimos who often kill their babies, mainly the girls. It appears that the Eskimos they don’t have as much regard for human life or care for their children very much. But the Eskimos have just as much regard for life as the rest of us do. They simply live under harsh, unsafe, and extreme circumstances that in order to sustain their population and provide for their families, they may have to kill their baby. Again, there is no difference in morality, but a difference in conditions. This brings up the idea of Universal truths. Our class was able to come to the agreement that there are some ideas such as regard for human life, and honesty that are Universal pragmatic truths/morals. Without these universal morals, no society would be able to function.
Even though Rachels does not agree with Cultural Relativism, he believes there are lessons we can take away from this theory. Rachels first lesson states this theory warns us about “the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational truth” (313). Lastly, Rachels believes that we need to keep an open mind. Regardless of how strongly we believe in something we need to acknowledge that our feeling are not always perceptions of truth or what is best. When what we believe in is challenged or said to be not the best, people become very defensive and close minded. The Eskimo example shows how we must ask questions before assuming someone or a society is morally in the wrong.
I really liked “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and agree with Rachels arguments. The critique of Cultural Relativism is kind of a “don’t judge a book by its cover” idea. We should not assume that actions in different societies are wrong or immoral at first glance. We must humbly and open mindedly go about asking questions to uncover the truth to the situation. Often what appears to be a difference in morals in really just a difference in beliefs. Most cultures do have the same morals or value the same things. This idea is so applicable today. I feel like too many people judge other cultures so arrogantly, however, don’t know the facts. To me this reading really shows that there are universal morals and the importance of valuing beliefs of other cultures. In class we talked about the Burqa Bills that France had implemented. This article focuses on the Burqa bills in Australia. This article critiques the ban and explains the negative impact of it.
klick no virus link for sexy me time viruslink.com
ReplyDelete