"The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" presentation

Summary

This video discusses cultural relativism, examining the idea that morality is determined by each culture. The author critiques this view, highlighting three major flaws: it denies moral progress, restricts members from critiquing their own culture, and relies on an illogical framework. The author suggests that while cultural relativism can help foster an open mind, it overlooks universal values shared across cultures, such as the importance of truth, not murdering, and caring for the young. The author concludes that there are common ethical truths that transcend cultures, offering a standard by which to evaluate moral issues.

Takeaways

• 😀 Cultural relativism asserts that moral rules are determined by cultures, meaning that what is considered right or wrong depends on cultural standards.
• 😀 According to cultural relativism, each culture creates its own moral framework, and this should be accepted as correct by members of that culture.
• 😀 The author argues that cultural relativism is not correct but encourages an open mind in understanding different cultural practices.
• 😀 One criticism of cultural relativism is that it denies moral progress, as cultures can change their views on right and wrong, but cultural relativism claims that the culture is always correct, regardless of the shift in moral standards.
• 😀 Cultural relativism doesn't allow members of a culture to criticize their own society's practices, as it suggests that the culture's rules are inherently right.
• 😀 A key flaw of cultural relativism is that it is illogical, as it suggests that two contradictory beliefs, such as one culture thinking Mountain Dew is morally good and another thinking it's bad, can both be right.
• 😀 The author critiques the argument of cultural relativism by comparing it to scientific facts, where there are right and wrong answers (e.g., the shape of the Earth), which does not apply to ethical questions where morality is relative.
• 😀 The argument against cultural relativism suggests that just because cultures disagree does not mean there is no objective truth, especially when moral values overlap across different cultures.
• 😀 The author believes that some ethical values transcend cultures, such as the importance of truth, the prohibition of murder, and caring for the young, as these are universally accepted principles.
• 😀 By examining common ethical values across cultures, the author argues that there is an objective moral truth, which challenges the relativistic view that morality is purely dependent on cultural norms.

Q & A

What is cultural relativism?

Cultural relativism is the belief that moral standards and ethics should be derived from a culture's values, meaning that what is considered right or wrong depends on the cultural context. It suggests that each culture defines its own moral rules and standards.

What is the author's stance on cultural relativism?

The author believes that cultural relativism is not correct, although it can help promote open-mindedness. The author argues that while cultural relativism has some benefits, it fails in certain areas, such as moral progress and the ability to critique one's own culture.

How does cultural relativism deny moral progress?

Cultural relativism denies moral progress because it asserts that whatever a culture decides is morally right, is always correct. For example, if slavery was once accepted in a culture and is now rejected, cultural relativism would claim that both stances were correct at the time, which means there is no room for moral progress.

Why does cultural relativism prevent criticism of one's own culture?

Cultural relativism prevents criticism because it posits that each culture determines its own moral rules, and those rules are always right for that culture. Therefore, members of a culture cannot criticize or challenge the cultural norms, even if they disagree with them.

How does the author argue that cultural relativism is illogical?

The author argues that cultural relativism is illogical because it suggests that when two cultures disagree, there is no objective right or wrong. This is akin to arguing that since some people believe the Earth is flat and others believe it is round, there is no correct answer. The author points out that disagreements on ethics do not mean there is no correct answer, unlike scientific facts.

What analogy does the author use to criticize cultural relativism’s logic?

The author uses the analogy of two people, Sarah and Sam, who disagree on the shape of the Earth. One believes it is flat and the other believes it is round. Cultural relativism would claim there is no correct answer because of the disagreement, but the author argues that there is an objective truth about the shape of the Earth, similar to how there may be objective truths in ethics.

What is the flaw in the 'Earth shape' analogy presented by the author?

The flaw is that the Earth shape debate involves scientific facts, where there is an objective truth (the Earth is round). Ethics, on the other hand, does not have objective answers in the same way; it is subjective and relative to culture. Therefore, using scientific disagreement to explain moral disagreement is not a valid comparison.

What is the author’s defense of cultural relativism despite its flaws?

The author acknowledges that cultural relativism helps foster an open mind by encouraging people to understand different cultural practices. It helps reveal that there may be common values across cultures, even if the methods of expressing them differ.

What are some universal ethical values that transcend cultures, according to the author?

The author suggests that there are some ethical values shared by all cultures, such as the importance of truth, the prohibition of murder, and the need to care for the young. These values are necessary for societal function and survival, indicating a universal ethical standard.

How do cultures' practices differ yet reflect similar values, according to the author?

The author provides the example of how two cultures may have different funeral practices—one might consume a small part of the deceased, while another may burn the body. Despite the differences in practices, both cultures share the underlying value of honoring the dead, showing that cultural practices may vary but core values are often the same.