Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism is the thesis that morality is relative to a culture. What this means is
that whether or not an action is morally permissible depends on the values of the cultural
in which that action occurs. For example, one could ask the question “Is slavery morally
permissible”. A cultural relativist would say that whether or not slavery is permissible
depends on the values of the culture. In our current culture slavery is not permissible
therefore it would be morally wrong to try to enslave another person. However, in other
cultures, for example ancient Greece, slavery was an accepted institution. Therefore, a
cultural relativist would claim that it was morally permissible for someone to own slaves
in ancient Greece.
If two cultures have different, conflicting views about morality we want to ask: “Whose
values are the correct values?” A cultural relativist would claim that there simply is no
answer to this question. Actions are right or wrong only relative to culture. There is no
objective, universal standard of right or wrong.
Consequences of Cultural Relativism:
If one accepts Cultural Relativism there are several troubling consequences of this theory:
1) You can’t rationally criticize the values of another culture. To say that the
practices of another society are immoral implies that there is some universal
standard of right and wrong. However, according to CR there is no such standard.
2) Moral Knowledge. In order to determine whether any action is right or wrong all
we have to do is look at the values of our culture. If you lived in a slave owning
society and you began to wonder whether slavery is morally permissible you
would have to conclude that slavery is morally permissible since it is accepted by
your culture. Remember according to CR morality is completely determined by
the values of a culture.
3) No moral progress. To say a society has made moral progress implies that that
society got better, morally speaking. However, according to CR this is not
possible. Since there is no such thing as objective morality, it is impossible to
claim that the moral values of a society improved. To say values improved
implies that there is universal standard from which we can compare two different
sets of values.
Objections to Cultural Relativism:
1) One way people argue against CR is to attempt to demonstrate that some values
are universal values. A universal value is a value that is shared by all cultures.
For example, it seems that care for children is a value that has been shared by all
cultures. If we try to imagine a society that had absolutely no regard for their
children, it seems difficult to imagine that that society could survive. Caring for
children seems to be a NECESSARY value. Perhaps there are other universal
values that exist in all cultures. (Such as: prohibitions on killing, stealing, lying)
2) One can also argue against CR by noting that ethical claims require reasons.
Whenever one makes an ethical claim it is possible to support that claim with
reasons. Sometimes the reasons given for a particular ethical claim are bad
reasons. For example, in the past people justified slavery by claiming that certain
races are genetically superior to other races. This was their justification for the
claim “Slavery is morally permissible”. However, can’t we say that this is a bad
reason? It is false that the one race is genetically superior to another.