“the Strengths of Cultural and Ethical Relativism Outweigh Their Weaknesses” - Discuss

“The strengths of cultural and ethical relativism outweigh their weaknesses” - discuss.

Cultural relativism is the concept that what is right or wrong varies according to the beliefs of each culture. Within different cultures we may observe that what we believe is morally wrong, they see as a normal thing, such as how many muslims believe that chopping off the hand is the correct punishment for stealing, where as in my culture this would be seen as simply barbaric. Because there are so many different cultures across the world, this means that there are no universal rights or wrongs that we can apply to everyone, and different societies have different moral codes, meaning that ours is just one among millions. Because of the ethical diversity all over the world, this means we have to be tolerable to all opinions and can not judge anyone or deem their actions right or wrong.

Ethical relativism is the concept that there are no universally valid moral principles. This is because all moral principles that a person holds, are specific to them and their own beliefs, knowledge and experiences. This means that there is no such thing as good in itself, as there are many different opinions on one topic that one person may see as good, but another may not. Because the good or bad is dependent on different peoples’ opinions, there can be no objective basis for us to discover the truth.

“If you say there is no such thing as morality in absolute terms, then child abuse is not evil, it just may not happen to be your thing.”[1] This quote is an example of how cultural and ethical relativism can be applied to real life. If there is no absolutes in terms of good and bad, then who am I to say that an act such as child abuse or abortion is wrong? just because I may see it as wrong, this does not mean that other people or other cultures may also think it is wrong, in fact, they may have no problem with it.

Although cultural and ethical relativism may at first seem very similar, the key difference is that cultural relativism relates to what is right or wrong for a culture/community as a group, which different between other cultures and communities, where as ethical relativism is what is right or wrong for one single person, which differs from other people. They both address the idea that there is no absolute moral truths, as they differ so greatly between people and cultures.

The strengths of cultural relativism are very strong. One of the main advantages of it is that it allows people to have their own independent views, giving them the ability to express their own views freely without worrying about the judgement of others. Because these views are held by a community, it can also help to bring them together and to talk about their beliefs together, or to defend/help each other in times of need. They can also help give the tools to cultures to make moral decisions, as they will need to decide between them what is right or wrong to apply so certain situations.

Another strength of cultural relativism is that it can give cultures a sense of identity, just as ethical relativism can give a person a sense of identity as it is allowing them to have their own beliefs and have their own say on topics and the chance to stand up for themselves and what they believe in, giving an egalitarian way of thinking.

Ethical relativism is also good as because it is accessible to everyone as everyones personal opinions is valued because they are all seen as equals. Because everyones opinion is listened to, this means that any problem can be justified. Some may see this as a strength of ethical relativism as it enables people to say why they believe in something, but it could also been seen as a weakness.

Because ethical relativism allows anything to be justified, this leaves us with the question that if anything can be justified, is anything right or wrong? as although killing is seen as wrong, if the person that is killed has killed 15 other people and committed many serious other crimes, is it more justified to kill that person? or even if you don’t like a person, is it okay to kill them? because everything can be justified, there can be no clear line between right and wrong. If the world was to accept that there can be no rules as everything can be justified, it would no longer be safe as current laws in places would become invalid.

The main weakness of ethical relativism is the fact that we need rules to keep society safe. With no certainties of what is right and wrong, no one would be able to condemn anyone for committing a crime, as if the crime can be justified by the person that committed it then no one can argue with them as everyones opinion is as valued as the next persons.

There are also many weaknesses of cultural relativism. One of them is the question that if a belief is held by your culture, and you too believe it, to what extent is it your view? If you have been brought up to believe it, then you have been strongly influenced by those around you and not given the opportunity to make up your own mind on a subject as you have known the general opinion of those around you for so long.

It also raises the question that the freedom that cultural relativism stands is being compromised, as within one culture with a strong joint belief, if there is one member that has a different opinion, it is likely that they will become outcasts and possibly condemned by the rest of their community. The culture could also become very judgmental against other communities, which is something that cultural relativism should stand against.

An example of cultural prejudice is when Herodotus spoke of an even in which the king if Persia asked the Greeks and Callations to swap funeral rites with each other. Both cultures were absolutely disgusted by the others’ tradition and refused to swap, illustrating how what seems right to one culture may seem completely wrong to another, and how this has made them judgmental as they did not take time to understand why the other did what they did.

After evaluating the strength and weaknesses of cultural and ethical relativism, it is clear to me that although each aim to value everyones opinion, give people a sense of identity and abolish judgement against each other, it is apparent to me that the weaknesses definitely outweigh the strengths.

Although it is important for people to have independence of opinion and to be able to make their own judgements, the need for universally moral rights and wrongs is stronger. Without structure, and definite rights and wrongs, a society can not live safely or happily as people have the option to do what they want, and this could sometimes mean negative actions or those that could harm others around them, so that it is vital that Cultural and ethical relativism do not take the ethical foreground to ensure that our society does not deteriorate into a dystopian state.

-----------------------
[1]- Rebecca Manley Pippert.