Cultural Relativism Analysis

In “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” James Rachels discusses the positives and negatives regarding the concept of cultural relativism, but his overall position is that cultural relativism is not a strong philosophy. On the flip side of that Immanuel Kant has a completely different ethical theory that is based around deontology. Despite its positives cultural relativism cannot be defended against Rachel’s criticism, but Kant’s ethical theory cannot necessarily defeat cultural relativism. Cultural Relativism is the idea that moral practices and social norms change from culture to culture, and so morality and ethics are relative and are determined by our culture. The idea is that if moral practices and social norms vary from culture to culture …show more content…
I agree that there are positives to Cultural Relativism, but I think that Rachels makes a very fair point especially in regards to the fact that moral progress cannot be achieved. If progress is not possible then the theory cannot stand because cultures die without progress. For example, in some societies, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, female genital mutilation (FGM) is seen as a way to conform to societal ideals of femininity and modesty and is considered a necessity in properly raising a woman. The reality is though that FGM only leads to great harm and pain for the women involved. There is no actual benefit from the practice and the negatives associated with it are far reaching. The practice leads to infertility, pain, infection, and other long-term risks. FGM violates these women’s human rights and all the practice to continue simply because it is a societal norm is detrimental to those parties involved. A Cultural Relativist would simply accept FGM because it is societally acceptable, but to not see the practice as intrinsically wrong and hurtful has lasting impact on the society. Thus Rachels’s points about the shortcoming of Cultural Relativism hold true and Cultural Relativism cannot be defended despite its few …show more content…
Kant’s theory is based on deontology. Deontology is the study of duty and is the idea that action is an instance of our conformity with a principle or rule. Kant believes in the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is the belief that all of our actions are guided by a maxim or law that we should respect the dignity of all rational beings. This theory is meant to be universal. It applies to all rational beings, which means people who are able to determine their own actions. As rational beings we are all also implicitly committed to this idea. Essentially all humans are meant to follow this Categorical Imperative and so all moral attitudes are based on our rationale and not on our backgrounds or cultures. For example, all people should strive to create equality in our world rather to separate groups based on gender or because by doing so they are respecting the dignity of all rational beings and also because it is the most reasonable thing to do. By promoting equality of all people, people are acting with reason and not being influenced by their background, experiences, or culture. They are simply doing so because it is the rational thing to do. Despite being in direct contrast to Cultural Relativism Kant’s ethical theory does not really invalidate Cultural Relativism because his own theory is so abstract. It hard to believe that people could actually be motivated by reason rather then their experience,