Is Morality Culturally Relative

1. Introduction
2. Significant claims to determine Cultural Relativism
3. Standard terms- to assist the easy
4. Moral absolute in elaborated and example
5. Conflicting cultural opinions
6. Behaviour is culturally institutionalized
7. No objective standard t discriminate the social codes
8. Value systems- blockhead to the rational social principles
9. Superstitions beliefs & the behaviour of closed-mind people
10. Knowledge & morality are not comparable
11. Conclusion

Within this world that we live on, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This means that they will may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to say is that every society has a different way of analyzing and dealing with life’s event’s, because of their cultural beliefs. This is claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the correct view of ethics.

1. Different societies have different moral codes.

2. There is no objectives standard that can be used to judge ne societal code better than another.

3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.

4. There is no “universal truth” in othics- that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peopies at all times.

5. The moral code of society determines what is right within society; that is the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, at least within that society.

6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance the practices of other cultures

Above are six claims that help explain the notion of Cultural Relativism. This essay arguments will help to illustrate them directly and indirectly. It will be clear that the true answer to the questions of ethics is, Cultural Relativism. The definitions listened are words used throughout the paper and can be used as a reference.

Cultural Absolutism –Holds there is exactly one right answer to every “What I should do n situation x?” Society – Organize or interdependent community Ethics- set of moral principles Morality – degree of conformity to moral principles: moral conduct; science of morals Values – desirability, or qualities on which these depend; one’s principals, priorities, or standards.

The subject of murder is probably the most common issue thought to be a moral absolute. What I mean is, people think it is wrong to kill another human being. This is not always the case; murder has its place in many cultures. In Rachel’s article, the Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elder are to contribute to the group but; they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a higher mortality rate because they are the hunters and food providers. The killing of female infants helps keep the necessary equilibrium for the survival of the group. So, this infanticide and killing of does not signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their children , nor less respect for human life; it is merely recognition that murder is sometimes needed to ensure that the Eskimos do not become culturally extinct.

To continue with the subject of murder, here are many questions about murder that our own society faces. Within our own society there are conflicting views on topics such as abortion, capital punishment and, euthanasia. To some these acts are considered to be murder, to others they are necessary to our society. The point of this conflict is that even within is that our own society, there is a discrepancy between what is morally right or wrong. There is an exception to every so-called moral absolute. This eliminates the possibility of Moral Absolutism, and proves there is no universal truth.

Ruth states that homosexuals deal with many conflicts that are culturally based. For example, in the western society, the Catholic religion believes that it is a sin for individuals to partake in homosexual activity. By this I mean, the tendency toward his trait of homosexuality in our culture exposes these individuals to all the conflicts that coincide with this choice of lifestyle. Some of these conflicts include hate groups that partake in “gay bashing”, public ridicule and even laws against homosexuals taking wedding vows. This differ from explains about how in American Indian tribes exists the institution of the breached. These are men who, after puberty take up he dress and occupations of women and even marry other men. This individuals are considered to be good healers

Rachel’s proposes that cultures have value systems that do not differ that greatly. He states that cultures beliefs are different but, the values that they hold toward these beliefs are basically the same. Rachel’s argument is based on the discussion of a society who holds a cow as being sacred. This society will not eat this cow even on the verge of starvation. The society holds a belief that this cow contains the spirit of a deceased family member, “Granma”. This society’s value in Rachel’s mind is the same as their own western society in that we would not believe it to be right to eat “Grandma”. The problem in this argument is Rachels gets confused in what the real value system is. The real value system is not as Rachels described it of believed cannibalism. The real values are whether we would endanger our lives as well as our families over a superstitious belief. People in our western society would not starve their families over a superstitious belief, but the people in this society Rachels described would. This is definitely not the same value system. So these cultures do have different ethical principles.

One fault of moral absolute is that of a closed mind. These are people who are unable to accept any action that they do not believe to be moral. These are people who, as Rachel’s put it, are arrogant with closed minds (Pojman, 1996). With opening our minds, people will find that our feelings are not necessarily the truth. Our emotions will turn into understanding. What I mean is that with the knowledge of cultural rituals or societies’ customs, we will be able to accept the peculiar things they do in comparison to be own society. For example when we first learn that the callatians the bodies of their dead fathers, people in our society are disgusted and outraged. Then these people learn that this is done out of respect, with the belief that the Callatians dead father’s spirit will live inside them. This gives people who at first are outraged an understanding of why this act is completed. So without Cultural Relativism this understanding could not take place.

In Rachel’s article it is said that Cultural Relativism follows an argument that is not sound. He states that Cultural Relativism attempts to derive to substantive conclusion about morality, from the mere fact that two cultures disagree about it. Rachels uses the analogy about societies who believe the world is flat. This analogy of objective truth is wrong. First, because their knowledge of the earth’s shape is just a simple lack of technology. Their ability to survive as a society is because of their moral codes and is not comparable to their lack of technology. Their moral codes allows them to set up a social and religious structure, their education has nothing to do with morality. Their education is related to a lack of resources. Comparing morality and knowledge has no reflection in the disproof of Cultural Relativism. Therefore all Rachels is really trying to pass judgments about one groups’ idea being right and another one being wrong. Education and knowledge are not comparable and: this analogy is wrong.

The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is f the society says that a certain moral code is right, at least within that society. This explain why Rachels is wrong in stating that a consequence of Cultural Relativism is that; we would also be stopped from criticizing other less benign practice. The Eskimos consider it to be morally okay to kill the elderly and baby girls because they are acts practiced within their own society, for survival. To say that we could not condemn a society for the purpose of slavery on the killing of Jews by anti-semantic, is not Culturally Relative. The definition is defined as being within their society. This is not a view of Cultural Relativism because these people are placing their beliefs on another society, his Jewish society. This is not an acceptable consequence of Cultural Relativism.

Rachel’s theory about Cultural Relativism being based on an invalid argument is no true. But, Rachel’s shows why people give in to the thought of Moral Absolutism. People make the mistake of assuming all of these cultural preferences are based on absolute standards. This is not the case, some societies just have peculiar practices, in comparison to our own society. For example, the Callatians eat the flesh of their dead fathers. To our society, this act is considered to be some sort of appalling, demented act. To the Callatians, this is a traditional ritual and to ignore it would be disrespectful and the act of a degenerate. This discrepancy is just another example of Cultural Relativism.

A segment of people in the Melanesia have a social code that is based on paranoia. This attribute is abnormal to our western society, according to Ruth. Abnormality is a term for the segment that particular civilization does not use.