8a Cultural Relativism - what is it?

Summary

This video explores cultural relativism, a theory in ethics that asserts moral standards are defined by the cultural context in which they occur. It presents six key claims made by cultural relativists, such as the idea that different societies have different moral codes, and that no objective standard exists to judge these codes. The video critically examines the validity of the argument for cultural relativism and concludes that, while differing moral beliefs exist, the argument supporting relativism is not sound, sparking further debate on whether morality is culturally dependent or universally objective.

Takeaways

• 😀 Cultural relativism is an ethical theory that argues morality is relative to the culture in which it occurs.
• 😀 The six key claims of cultural relativism include the diversity of moral codes across societies and the rejection of objective moral standards.
• 😀 According to cultural relativism, an action is right if it is approved by a society, and wrong if it is disapproved by that society.
• 😀 One of the central claims of cultural relativism is that there is no universal truth in ethics, meaning no moral principles apply to all cultures at all times.
• 😀 Cultural relativism challenges the idea that any one society's moral code is superior to others, asserting that all are equally valid within their respective cultures.
• 😀 A common criticism of cultural relativism is that it prevents moral judgment of harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation or Nazi atrocities.
• 😀 The argument for cultural relativism based on cultural diversity does not logically lead to the conclusion that there is no objective truth in morality, rendering it an invalid argument.
• 😀 Philosophers like Kant and Mill argue that there are objective ethical standards that can be used to judge cultural practices, contradicting the core premise of cultural relativism.
• 😀 Claim 5 of cultural relativism—'the moral code of a society determines what is right and wrong'—is controversial because it allows for the possibility that one action can be both right and wrong depending on the society.
• 😀 The argument for cultural relativism is widely debated, with critics asserting that there are universal ethical truths, such as the wrongness of torturing innocent babies for fun.

Q & A

What is cultural relativism in ethics?

Cultural relativism in ethics is the theory that an action is right if and only if it is approved by a culture, and wrong if disapproved by that culture. It suggests that moral codes are relative to each society, and there is no universal standard to judge them.

How does cultural relativism differ from theories in anthropology or sociology?

Cultural relativism is a theory in ethics, not in anthropology or sociology. While anthropology or sociology might study cultural practices and differences, cultural relativism makes a claim about moral truth—that right and wrong are defined by the norms of a society.

What are the six claims made by cultural relativists?

1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. There is no objective standard to judge one societal code better than another. 3. Our own society's moral code has no special status. 4. There are no universal moral truths. 5. A society's moral code determines what is right and wrong within that society. 6. It is arrogant to judge the conduct of other peoples.

Why is the second claim, 'there is no objective standard to judge one societal code better than another', controversial?

This claim is controversial because many ethical theories, like Kant's or Mill's utilitarianism, argue for objective standards to judge actions across different cultures. For example, they might argue that some practices are inherently wrong, such as torturing innocent people, regardless of cultural context.

What is the defining thesis of cultural relativism?

The defining thesis of cultural relativism is that the moral code of a society determines what is right and wrong. According to this view, actions are right if approved by the culture, and wrong if disapproved of, meaning morality is entirely relative to cultural norms.

How do cultural relativists view universal moral truths?

Cultural relativists argue that there are no universal moral truths. They believe that moral principles are not fixed across all cultures and times but are instead culturally dependent and can vary widely from one society to another.

What are some examples that challenge cultural relativism's claim of no universal moral truths?

One commonly cited example is the belief that torturing innocent babies for fun is universally wrong. This example challenges cultural relativism by suggesting that there are moral principles that should hold universally, regardless of cultural norms.

Why is the claim that 'the moral code of a society has no special status' not particularly controversial?

This claim is not particularly controversial because it argues that no culture's moral code is inherently superior to others simply by virtue of being the moral code of that society. It challenges ethnocentrism but doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of moral codes themselves.

What are some examples where it might not be considered arrogant to judge another culture's practices?

Examples include practices like female genital mutilation or the persecution of Jews by the Nazis. In such cases, cultural relativism's claim that it is arrogant to judge another culture's conduct is questioned, as these actions are seen as morally wrong regardless of cultural approval.

What does the argument for cultural relativism typically look like, and why is it considered invalid?

The argument for cultural relativism typically includes the premise that different cultures have different moral codes and the conclusion that there is no objective moral truth. However, this argument is considered invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise; just because cultures differ in their moral codes doesn't mean there are no objective moral truths.