Fockler 1
Carissa Fockler
Professor Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht
Ethical Decision-Making
March 12, 2015
Moral Isolationism and Cultural Relativism
There are many different ways in which people judge the morality of actions. Some,
judge based on their own ideas of what makes an action right or wrong. While others judge based
on how a person’s culture would view an action. Either way, most people make judgments about
actions and practices of themselves and everyone else around them. However, there are those
who claim that they do not judge others due to a lack of knowledge or out or respect. In her
writing Trying Out One’s New Sword, Mary Midgley presents the idea of “moral isolationism”
and the idea that unmixed cultures cannot existed in an attempt to adequately refute and
undermine the practice of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is used by some people to to determine if an act or practice is morally
right or wrong. In a cultural relativist view, an act or practice is considered morally right if one’s
culture approves of it. For example, a cultural relativist would state that female circumcision is a
moral act because it is considered morally right in the African culture. In order to challenge the
cultural relativist view, Midgley first compares a person who takes on a cultural relativist view to
a person who is a moral isolationist. She defines someone who takes on a moral isolationist
position as a person that believes that out of respect and tolerance for another’s culture, they are
unable to ever make a moral judgment or critique a different that culture. Midgley then goes on
to explain why the moral isolationism perspective is wrong. She states that people who take on
this position may think that they are being respectful, when in all actuality they are being
Fockler 2
disrespectful because, in a way, they are refusing to take the time to become educated about the
other person’s culture. Through connection, Midgley is making the point that cultural relativists
are making judgments about another culture without any real knowledge of the reasons behind
the actions. Therefore, cultural relativism is disrespectful because they are making uneducated
judgments.
Midgley continues to refute cultural relativism by stating the faults that she observes in
the moral isolationist position by presenting what she refers to as a “isolation barrier”,which
would appear in cultures or societies that practice moral isolationism extended their ideas and
beliefs to other cultures. This “isolation barrier” brought up many questions that helped support
Midgley’s stance that moral isolationism is wrong to practice. The first of these questions was if
the isolation barrier would result in other cultures being unable to criticize and judge the culture
that was practicing moral isolationism. In other words, because people from the original culture,
who were taking on a moral isolationist perspective, are not judging the secondary culture,
members of the secondary culture are unable to judge members of the original culture. Midgley
contradicts this idea by stating that there are outsiders who completely emerge in a culture and
are able to experience and understand specific values and practices of a culture. These people are
then able to make accurate judgments about the moral rightness, or wrongness, or another
culture. Another question that is brought up is if isolation barriers not only prevent blame, or
judgment, or if they also prevent praise of other cultures to occur. Midgley brings up this
question because she believes that in order to praise other cultures and societies a person must
first criticize or judge them. This means, according to Midgley, that because people who practice
moral isolationism are unable to judge and criticize then they clearly cannot praise. Therefore, a
moral isolationist can never state that another culture has strong and respectful virtues because it
Fockler 3
would be considered a praise, which would mean that they are judging the culture. By bringing
up these questions and through her answers to the questions, it is clear that Midgley believes that
the moral isolationism perspective is a wrong one. Which then further supports her belief that
cultural relativism is an inaccurate way to judge actions that occur throughout the world.
Midgley also claims that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal. This claim
would help challenge cultural relativism because it would mean that people have a right to judge
other cultures practices as right or wrong based on their own opinion; due to the fact that all
cultures are connected. She supports the idea that cultures cannot be separated by stating that if
cultures were indeed unmixed, then other cultures, such as Greek, Roman, and even the
American, could not have been formed. This idea is based in truth because it is impossible to
separate cultures into their own categories or boxes. In between nearly every culture, lies a grey
area in which cultures merge together. This occurs because many cultures share similar virtues,
such as honesty and loyalty. In addition, many cultures celebrate the same holidays or traditions,
such as Christmas and New Year’s. Although they may call them different things they are still
essential celebrating for the same reasons. These shared celebrations and traditions help prove
that nearly every culture around the world is connected is some way. Furthermore, with new
technology advances, it has become very easy to become educated about other cultures that
people would normally not be able to get information on. This allows people to incorporate
practice and values that they find interesting and valuable into their own lives; therefore,
combining cultures. There has never been a time when cultures were unmixed because without
the mixing of cultures the world would not be what it is today. This means that cultural
relativism has never been an accurate way to determine if a practice is right or wrong because the
world has always been connected through cultures.
Fockler 4
Midgley presents a solid case for why cultural relativism is an incorrect way to determine
what is morally right or wrong but, there are counter arguments that have the ability to punch
holes in her case. One of these arguments is directed at her claim that when moral isolationists do
not make judgments of other cultures practices or actions it should be considered disrespectful,
rather than respectful. When people are unable to make an accurate and well informed judgment
due to a lack of knowledge it should not be considered disrespectful because they are not
jumping to conclusion and creating snap judgments that could possibly offend a member of the
culture. For example, in some African cultures, it is common practice to eat the brain tissue of an
elder relative after the pass away. Based on Midgley’s argument, people who take on a moral
isolationist view or practice cultural relativism are disrespecting the African culture by either not
making a judgment or by stating that the practice of eating an elders brain is morally permissible
because they culture says that the act is morally right. However, it would be more disrespectful
and offensive to make in inaccurate judgment or to say that the act of eating the brains is morally
wrong when a person does not know the meaning behind the practice.
This minor disparity in Midgley’s argument about cultural relativism can be overcome by
a simple word change or by a more in depth explanation regarding when it would be considered
to be disrespectful to not make a judgment or to state that a practice is morally acceptable
because the culture says it is. If Midgley would have included an exception that stated that
refusing to make a judgment about another culture is disrespectful, unless the person has no
background knowledge regarding the practice or action that they are basing their judgment on.
So that in, regard to the previously mentioned example, if a person was unable to make a welleducated judgment of the practice of eating brains it would be understood and be the respectable
Fockler 5
thing to do, rather than attempting to make a judgment with no prior knowledge on the subject.
By including this exception, Midgley's challenge would become more solid and more acceptable.
Mary Midgley in her writing titled Trying Out One’s New Sword successfully challenges
the cultural relativist view of the world. She does so by first presenting the idea of “moral
isolationism” then by presenting questions that are associated with this idea; which, she would
then show how the idea is wrong in her answers. Midgley also demonstrates how cultural
relativism can be viewed as disrespectful by some cultures because in a way a person is refusing
to take the time to learn about a culture in order to make an accurate and correct judgment. If
everyone was to challenge the world they live in and take the time to become educated about
other cultures, people would realize that there are many different ways to view something and
that it is not always a bad thing.