Morality Is Culturally Relative Essay, Research Paper

Within this universe that we live on, there is an tremendous sum of people. Each of these people belongs to different civilizations and societies. Every society has traits and imposts that make it alone. These societies follow different moral codifications. This means that they will may hold different replies to the moral inquiries asked by our ain society. What I am seeking to state is that every society has a different manner of analysing and covering with life & # 8217 ; s events, because of their cultural beliefs. This is claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the right position of ethics.1. Different societies have different moral codes.2. There is no nonsubjective criterion that can be used to judge one social codification better than another.3. The moral codification of our ain society has no particular position ; it is simply one among many.4. There is no & # 8220 ; cosmopolitan truth & # 8221 ; in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.5. The moral codification of a society determines what is right within that society ; that is, if the moral codification of a society says that a certain action is right, so that action is right, at least within that society.6. It is mere haughtiness for us to seek to judge the behavior of other peoples. We should follow an attitude of tolerance toward the patterns of other civilizations ( Pojman,1996, p.360 ) .Above are six claims that help explicate the impression of Cultural Relativism. This essays statements will assist to exemplify them straight and indirectly. It will be clear that the true reply to the inquiry of moralss is, Cultural Relativism. The definitions listed are words used through out the paper and can be used as a reference.Cultural Absolutism- Holds there is precisely one right reply to every & # 8220 ; What I should make in state of affairs X? & # 8221 ; .Cultural Relativism- & # 8220 ; Views moral cogency in footings of societal credence & # 8221 ; Society- Organized or mutualist communityEthics- set of moral principalsMorality- grade of conformance to moral principals ; moral behavior ; scientific discipline of moralsValues- desirableness, or qualities on which these depend ; one & # 8217 ; s principals, precedences, or standards.The topic of slaying is likely the most common issue thought to be a moral absolute. What I mean is, people think it is incorrect to kill another human being. This is non ever the instance ; slaying has its topographic point in many civilizations. In Rachels article, the Eskimos pattern infanticide every bit good as the violent death of seniors. The seniors are excessively lame to lend to the group but ; they still consume cherished nutrient, which is scarce. This pattern is necessary for the endurance of the of the group. The males within the Eskimo folks have a higher mortality rate because they are the huntsmans and nutrient suppliers. The violent death of female babies helps maintain the necessary equilibrium for the endurance of the group. So, this infanticide and violent death of seniors does non signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their kids, nor less regard for human life ; it is simply acknowledgment that slaying is sometimes needed to guarantee that the Eskimos do non go culturally nonextant ( Pojman,1996 ) .To continue with the topic of slaying, there are many inquiries about slaying that our ain society faces. Within our ain society there are conflicting positions on subjects such as abortion, capital penalty and, euthanasia. To some these Acts of the Apostless are considered to be slaying, to others they are necessary to our society. The point of this struggle is that even within our ain society, there is a disagreement between what is morally right or incorrect. There is an exclusion to every alleged moral absolute. This eliminates the possibility of Moral Absolutism, and proves there is no cosmopolitan truth ( Pojman,1996 ) .Ruth provinces that homophiles deal with many struggles that are culturally based ( Pojman,1996 ) . For illustration, in our western society, the Catholic faith believes that is a wickedness for persons to partake in homosexual activity. By this I mean, the inclination toward this trait of homosexualism in our civilization exposes these persons to all the struggles that coincide with this pick of life style. Some of these struggles include hate groups that partake in & # 8220 ; gay socking & # 8221 ; , public ridicule and even Torahs against homophiles taking nuptials vows. This differs from what Ruth explains about how in American Indian folk there exists the establishment of the berdache ( Pojman,1996 ) . These are work forces who, after pubescence, take up the frock and businesss of adult females and even get married other work forces. These persons are considered to be good therapists and leaders in adult females & # 8217 ; s groups. In other words, they are socially placed and non ridiculed by other members of their society. This is an illustration of how different societies have different moral codes.Ruth provinces within her article how every society integrates itself with a chosen footing and neglects itself with behaviour deemed incompatible ( Pojman,1996 ) . This means societies will take their ain moral criterions and ethical codifications and, disregard actions that do non lie within the boundaries of these moral criterions and ethical codifications. She goes on to state that our moral codifications are non formed by our inevitable fundamental law of human nature. We recognize that morality differs in every society. Our ain civilization and environment will order these codifications. This explains why different people have different moral criterions because, behaviour is culturally institutionalized. The Kwakiutls of Melanesia have a societal codification that is based on paranoia. This property is unnatural to our western society, harmonizing to Ruth. Abnormality is a term for the section that that peculiar civilisation does non utilize ( Pojman,1996 ) . This is unnatural because in our moral codification the paranoia, or misgiving of others, would discontinue us from working decently. For illustration: we could non acquire nutrient from the supermarket, receive wellness attention from infirmaries, or even let our kids to have an instruction. This is because of the belief that the parties would be seeking t

o do us harm. Because of paranoia and distrust, the Kwakiutls are forced to break all social ties. For example, they do not accept food from the sharing of seed, even within the family group. This differs with our society in that, the trust of others plays a vital part of our everyday lives. We rely and trust others when we drive cars and interact at work. Both of our societies continue to survive and function though. This is an example of how there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.A society that does not have laws protecting members from murder has a society where the members respect the act of murder. The Kwakiutls go out and kill only after one of their own relatives has died. The Kwakiutls do not go out and kill at random times, they only kill to ease their soul for a dead relative (Pojman,1996). Within our own western society, there are laws against murder. This is because without these laws it would create complete anarchy. This is when a society respect the power of murder, it can function without laws against it. Rachels proposes that cultures have value systems that do not differ that greatly. He states that cultures beliefs are different but, the values that they hold toward these beliefs are basically the same. Rachels argument is based on the discussion of a society who holds a cow as being sacred. This society will not eat this cow even on the verge of starvation. The society holds a belief that this cow contains the spirit of a deceased family member, “Grandma”. This societies value in Rachels mind is the same as our own western society in that we would not believe it to be right to eat “Grandma” (Pojman,1996). The problem in this argument is Rachels gets confused in what the real value system is. The real value system is not as Rachels described it of believed cannabalism. The real values are whether we would endanger our lives as well as our families over a supersticious belief. People in our western society would not starve their families over a supersticious belief!, but the people in this society Rachels described would. This is definitely not the same value system. So these cultures do have different ethical principals. One fault of moral absolutes is that of a closed mind. These are people who are unable to accept any action that they do not believe to be moral. These are people who, as Rachel’s put it, are arrogant with closed minds (Pojman,1996). With opening our minds, people will find that our feelings are not necessarily the truth. Our emotions will turn into understanding. What I mean is that with the knowledge of cultural rituals or societies’ customs, we will be able to accept the peculiar things they do in comparison to be own society. For example when we first learn that the Callatians eat the bodies of their dead fathers, people in our society are disgusted and outraged. Then these people learn that this is done out of respect, with the belief that the Callatians dead father’s spirit will live inside them (Pojman,1996). This gives people who at first are outraged an understanding of why this act is completed. So without Cultural Relativism this understanding could not take place.In Rachels article it is said that Cultural Relativism follows an argument that is not sound. He states that Cultural Relativism attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about morality, from the mere fact that two cultures disagree about it. Rachels uses the analogy about societies who believe the world is flat (Pojman,1996). This analogy of objective truth is wrong. First, because their knowledge of the earth’s shape is just a simple lack of technology. Their ability to survive as a society is because of their moral codes and is not comparable to their lack of technology. Their moral codes allow them to set up a social and religious structure, their education has nothing to do with morality. Their education is related to a lack of resources. Comparing morality and knowledge has no reflection in the disproof of Cultural Relativism. Therefore all Rachels is really trying to pass judgments about one groups’ idea being right and another one being wrong. Education and knowledge are not comparable and; this analogy is wrong.The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is if the society says that a certain moral code is right, at least within that society. This explains why Rachels is wrong in stating that a consequence of Cultural Relativism is that; we would also be stopped from criticizing other less benign practices (Pojman,1996). The Eskimos consider it to be morally okay to kill the elderly and baby girls because they are acts practiced within their own society, for survival. To say that we could not condemn a society for the purpose of slavery on the killing of Jews by anti-semantic, is not Culturally Relative. The definition of Cultural Relativism is defined as being within their society. This is not a view of Cultural Relativism because these people are placing their beliefs on another society, the Jewish society. This is not an acceptable consequence of Cultural Relativism.Rachels’ theory about Cultural Relativism being based on an invalid argument is not true. But, Rachels shows why people give in to the thought of Moral Absolutism. People make the mistake of assuming all of these cultural preferences are based on absolute standards (Pojman,1996). This is not the case, some societies just have peculiar practices, in comparison to our own society. For example, the Callatians eat the flesh of their dead fathers. To our western society, this act is considered to be some sort of appalling, demented act. To the Callatians, this is a traditional ritual and to ignore it would be disrespectful and the act of a degenerate (Pojman,1996). This discrepancy is just another example of Cultural Relativism.Works CitedPojman, Louis P. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. 3rd ed. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996.