Madelyn Raska
PHIL 2306-032: Ethics
Prof. Linda Cox
February 2, 2018
Ethical Relativism Paper: Is Morality Always Relative?
Rachels states that "every standard is culture-bound". (Rachels 140) He argues against the Cultural Difference Argument by using a cultural relativist perspective using comparisons much like those discussed between meat eaters and vegetarians. In some societies and religions, it is believed to be immoral to consume the flesh of animals. Other societies believe life to be unsustainable without meat consumption. Cultural relativism claims that our moral personal codes are directly influenced by the cultural codes we were raised around. Is that always true?
The Cultural Differences Argument was born from the idea that “cultures …show more content…
He explains that there are people in remote places of the world who firmly believe that the world is flat. This deviation from our common thinking that the world is spherical does not mean that there is no truth. This disparity only means that some people are wrong. Rachels says that there is no reason to believe that if there is an “universal truth” that everyone would be aware and realize it. His conclusion is that the Cultural Differences Argument, to many people, is persuasive, but not sound. (Rachels 142)
Rachels states that even if the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid, culture relativism might still be true. He gives three consequences of taking the argument seriously. They read as follows:
1. We could no longer say the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
Rachels revisits the differences in the Greeks v. Callotian funerary practices, stating this consequence permits us from criticizing other societies. He warns that this would also include the inability to pass judgment on the actions of a society waging war for the sole purpose of taking slaves or a society that was overzealous on destroying the …show more content…
These factors include a society’s values, religion and factual beliefs, as well as their physical circumstances. Rachels, then, gives an example regarding the Eskimo infanticide, in which the Eskimos killed their infants, especially the girls. He goes on to explain the justification of the Eskimos. He states that in a society like ours, a parent who murders their own child would surely be locked up and socially shunned. This only shows a difference in our values. Other options are explored such as adoption to a childless couple is considered. The Eskimos only killed a baby as a last
PHIL 2306-032: Ethics
Prof. Linda Cox
February 2, 2018
Ethical Relativism Paper: Is Morality Always Relative?
Rachels states that "every standard is culture-bound". (Rachels 140) He argues against the Cultural Difference Argument by using a cultural relativist perspective using comparisons much like those discussed between meat eaters and vegetarians. In some societies and religions, it is believed to be immoral to consume the flesh of animals. Other societies believe life to be unsustainable without meat consumption. Cultural relativism claims that our moral personal codes are directly influenced by the cultural codes we were raised around. Is that always true?
The Cultural Differences Argument was born from the idea that “cultures …show more content…
He explains that there are people in remote places of the world who firmly believe that the world is flat. This deviation from our common thinking that the world is spherical does not mean that there is no truth. This disparity only means that some people are wrong. Rachels says that there is no reason to believe that if there is an “universal truth” that everyone would be aware and realize it. His conclusion is that the Cultural Differences Argument, to many people, is persuasive, but not sound. (Rachels 142)
Rachels states that even if the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid, culture relativism might still be true. He gives three consequences of taking the argument seriously. They read as follows:
1. We could no longer say the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
Rachels revisits the differences in the Greeks v. Callotian funerary practices, stating this consequence permits us from criticizing other societies. He warns that this would also include the inability to pass judgment on the actions of a society waging war for the sole purpose of taking slaves or a society that was overzealous on destroying the …show more content…
These factors include a society’s values, religion and factual beliefs, as well as their physical circumstances. Rachels, then, gives an example regarding the Eskimo infanticide, in which the Eskimos killed their infants, especially the girls. He goes on to explain the justification of the Eskimos. He states that in a society like ours, a parent who murders their own child would surely be locked up and socially shunned. This only shows a difference in our values. Other options are explored such as adoption to a childless couple is considered. The Eskimos only killed a baby as a last