If you were a Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the opposite would seem equally certain. Then explorers began to bring back strange tales. There is nothing moral about whether or not Earth is flat—it has been scientifically proven that Earth is an oblate spheroid.
One example Benedict uses is that of an island of northwest Melanesia. These customs cannot be said to be "correct" or "incorrect," for that implies we have an independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged.
It does make sense, they say, to condemn some practices, such as slavery and anti-Semitism, wherever they occur. The fact that there are values that pertain to every culture and time denies that this hypothesis the stature of a law.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them.
Right and wrong are now defined by socialization. Old people also, when they became too feeble to contribute to the family, were left out in the snow. Since the norms are bound in Polish society, invasion and manslaughter are not part of their norms.
This is important, because in order to determine whether the conclusion is true, we need arguments in its support.
Suppose a society waged war on its neighbors for the purpose of taking slaves. Society changes and morality becomes a moving target. They could not own property; they could not vote or hold political office; and generally they were under the almost absolute control of their husbands.
There may be situations in which it is thought to be permissible to lie. I agree with Rachels reasoning on the argument, the premise is motivated by observations, and not the facts and the conclusion suggests what is true.
For example, by following the cultural relativism theory to the letter we could not criticise the practice in Africa, Egypt and Sudan of female genital mutilation, despite the fact that it causes short and long term health concerns for the female involved. James Rachels summarizes the former theory into one brief statement: All in all, the Eskimo practice was a volatile scheme that bore little resemblance to what we call marriage.
Rachels is correct in his belief that there are many aspects of cultures that are not exclusive to specific cultures. Progress means replacing a way of doing things with a better way.
Because Cultural Relativism says that these judgments make no sense, the argument goes, it cannot be right.
This, of course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural Relativism. Recently much of this has changed, and most people think of it as progress.Rachels introduces a number of considerations that reject Cultural Relativism.
Cultural Relativism tells us that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics, and what does exist is. Does Rachels evaluate cultural relativism correctly? Does he have good reasons for accepting or rejecting it?
You focus in this section should be on the arguments in section 3 above. Essay on Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism - Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist.
1 THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM by JAMES RACHELS “Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.”. Essay The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism.
for Moral Relativism. Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. Essay on Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism - Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist.Download