James Rachel's Argument Of Cultural Relativism

495 Words2 Pages
Culture relativism is viewed as a belief that no objective morals exist. It is a single standard that may be brought to bear in judging the practices of any culture, at any time, including our own. Cultural relativism rightly warns us about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. Regarding the practices of both our culture and the cultures of other societies. Each society and or culture tend to have different moral codes as well as moral objectives. The society and or culture decided’s whether something is right or wrong; such as slavery, racism, or abortion. One is unable to judge the culture’s decision, we are obligated to be satisfied with each society or culture. Each decision within that specific society is correct. To say that a custom is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ would imply that we can judge that custom by some independent standard of right and wrong, but no such standard exists. Even if one has doubt about their societies…show more content…
It is not based off of ethics, it’s based off of ideas, beliefs and traditions. We need such things to exist, and Culture Relativism is revealing that it is not okay. One culture believes the earth is flat and another believes the earth is round. It does not follow, from the mere fact that people disagree, that there is no ‘objective truth’ in geography. There is no reason to think that if there is moral truth everyone must know it. Rachel expresses that only one culture has it right and they other has it wrong. Perhaps only one culture is correct. Rachel also believes that the social norm isn't correct. Given that cultural relativists take pride in their tolerance, it would be ironic if their theory actually supported the intolerance of warlike societies. Properly understood, however, cultural relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bounds of the culture
Show More
Related

  • Taylor Vs Rachel

    1868 Words  | 8 Pages

    Using two articles “On the Origin of Good and Evil” by Richard Taylor and “Why Morality Is Not Relative” by James Rachels from the book Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, authors Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, this essay will first try to identify what each of the two articles says about the nature of good and evil, and the relativity of morality. The main points of scholars Taylor and Rachels are that good and evil happens naturally in us, and we should not judge another

    Read More

More about James Rachel's Argument Of Cultural Relativism

Open Document