Shaffer-Landau's Arguments Against Cultural Relativism
875 Words4 Pages
Cultural relativism is the outlook that all ethical practices, traditions, and customs are relative to the individual within his own social context. It simply implies that there are no rights and wrongs because they vary from culture to culture. I choose to argue against the cultural relativist view on the grounds of Shaffer-Landau’s objection on the basis of Moral Infallibility. I shall first summarize Cultural relativism and shortly after describe what I take is the strongest argument against it to be. Then I will then formulate a response from the viewpoint of a cultural relativist, as I shall lastly argue against that response. As I previously mentioned Cultural relativism claims that correct moral standards are relative to cultures and societies. This ideology relies on the argument that there are no independent standards by which to judge “correct” or “incorrect” actions, since all standards are “culture-bound.” If you happen to identify yourself as a cultural relativist then you would have agree with the belief that the customs of other societies are not morally inferior to your own. A cultural relativist might have also have to agree with the ideal that it is okay to decide if actions are right or wrong simply by consulting the standards of that particular society.
On the basis of my argument…show more content… Since indeed cultural relativism claims that there is no objective “truth” in morality, and then there are no right or wrongs, there are only matters of opinions that vary from culture to culture. The cultural relativist may also decide to rephrase the claims and contradictions of a claim by being more specific to what is being meant. A cultural relativist might also acknowledge that tolerance is