Retro Rocker
New member
Cultural Relativism
There are many speculations on morality, what it is, and why we should be moral. Morality is a confusing subject. Many of the meta-ethical outlooks that have been proposed for this subject have been criticized and omitted as they were incompetent. Problems would arise from these theories. With each unsatisfactory theory, we can see the mistakes made and hopefully avoid those in the future. This will help us come closer to that perfect hypothesis that will guide us through our questions and help us figure out what is morally correct and what is not. Two of these outlooks that had seemed to be suitable, but after much analyzing, found to be inadequate include cultural relativism and the divine command theory. These two positions have many similar problems and recurring faults.
Cultural relativism states that the beliefs and customs a culture adopts as being correct is morally acceptable for that culture; therefore there is no universal truth about morality and morality is relative to culture. It also encourages tolerance towarRAB apparently diverse cultures and thus different moral views. For example, to a certain culture abortion may be morally acceptable, cultural relativists would say that abortion is morally right for that culture. Whereas if another culture finRAB abortion to be wrong, then it is morally right that abortion be banned, for that culture. Cultural relativism allows for diversity and differences between cultures, which in turn supports peace between cultures. Cultural relativism is a meta-ethical outlook because this theory attempts to explain the status of moral judgments. It gives guidelines as to what may be moral.
The divine command theory is also a meta-ethical approach because like cultural relativism, it also standardizes morality, defining what is moral and what is not. It claims to solve the meta-ethical question about the status of moral judgments, as well as the lingering question, "why be moral?". The divine command theory declares that something is morally right if it is willed by God and if God says it is right; thus, something is morally wrong if God says it is wrong and if it is forbidden by God. Therefore, morality is a creation of God’s will. We think that murder and rape is wrong because it is forbidden by God just as charity is willed by God and consequently we find giving to charities as being morally proper.
However, both cultural relativism and the divine command theory have been criticized extensively. Many of these criticisms are similar for both theories. One strong criticism of the divine command theory is that since it says that something is good if God commanRAB it, this makes morality dependent on God’s wills. God could command us to murder, steal or even commit rape and it would be considered morally acceptable because God had commanded it. Although some may say that God wouldn’t command those things and it is ridiculous to think that He might, God is free to command whatever He feels is morally correct. We find killing to be bad because we were taught that it is forbidden by God. How would we feel about it if it were commanded by God instead? Since the divine command theory says that whatever God commanRAB is good, if God had chosen to command the opposite of what is presently willed to us by Him, that would also be considered good simply because it is willed by God. God would be considered good even if he was malicious. Thus, the notion of goodness would become meaningless and there would be no grounRAB to praise or worship God. Similarly, the same criticism holRAB true for cultural relativism. Each culture is different and each have their own beliefs. Some of these beliefs may contradict another culture’s beliefs, but since cultural relativism says that whatever each culture believes is right, is right for that culture, both these cultures would theoretically be considered as correct. This makes it impossible to praise one’s own culture for being good and moral, since however a culture chooses to act would be considered to be morally right. Consequently it would also be impossible for one to criticize one’s own culture or that of another’s, because cultural relativism makes everything that a culture believes in, morally correct.
Not everyone is of the same culture, each person would hold individual ideas of what is moral and what is not. It seems impossible that we are all correct, especially considering that some ideas one might have may contradict another’s beliefs. Hence, cultural relativism goes against the notion of one universal truth, instead it implies that there are many truths. If one wasn’t sure which culture one wanted to participate in solely, if one was in between cultures, cultural relativism would not help one solve any moral dilemmas one might have. This is also the same for the divine command theory. Not everyone believes in God, or even the same God, and we are not sure which God is the universally true God. If one was trying to figure out which God to believe as being true, if one was not in favour of just one God, the divine command theory would not help this person solve his or her moral dilemmas.
These two meta-ethical positions also do not adhere to individual responsibility, if one’s culture deems it legitimate to kill others, and that person was taken to court for killing someone, that killer could say that it is not his/her fault but rather the fault of his/her culture. Also cultural relativism says that it is right for this person to kill as their culture believes it is right. This person could not be blamed or held responsible for his/her actions. The divine command theory could also be criticized for having this fault. If the God one believed and worshipped in announced that stealing was acceptable, and one followed this advice. If this person was caught and taken to court, he/she also would not be accountable for his/her own actions as the divine command theory states that whatever God commanded to be right is right. This thief would not be blamed and neither would God, for God is always right. Instead, stealing would just be made acceptable. Thus, these two meta-ethical outlooks make it possible for one to avoid their own responsibilities and to not be held accountable for their harmful or wrong actions.
The divine command theory also implies that morality doesn’t exist without a God, since morality is the creation of God’s will. However it is technically impossible for morality to not exist if there were no God, because even if the only thing existing in the whole universe is one person, that person could still have ideas as to what should be done and what shouldn’t be done. Morality is what should or ought to have occurred, it shouldn’t involve or rely on the existence of other things or other notions. Likewise, cultural relativism also does not allow for morality existing without a culture existing. What if there was a new issue, and one’s culture had no views on it? How would an individual know whether it is morally right or not? Morality must exist individually even if there were no God or any cultures, but the divine command theory and cultural relativism does not acknowledge this.
In conclusion, these criticisms that are common to both the divine command theory and cultural relativism, invalidates both of these meta-ethical outlooks. These criticisms show that neither one of these viewpoints are reliable. There are common errors made in both. Also both theories do not account for everything. They overlook some very important points. The first criticism we looked at prevents us from giving our culture and God credit for doing something good. Cultural relativism neeRAB to be altered so that although each culture may have different beliefs, there should be some sort of a guideline as to which beliefs may be morally correct and which may not be. Therefore, cultural relativism neeRAB to account for some form of a universal morality that can be independent of culture. It is also apparent that the divine command theory neeRAB to be altered somewhat as well. This theory also neeRAB to account for the existence of morality as a separate issue from the existence of God as we have seen that morality does exist even if there were no God. It should also be considered that not everyone believes in God or the same God, thus either one universal God should be found that everyone can believe in, or the divine command theory should give a better definition of morality other than it is the creation of God’s will. Both these meta-ethical viewpoints need to be modified to prohibit from the future, any contradictions that may occur. For example, if one culture’s beliefs do not agree with that of another culture’s, it is not possible that both can be correct. Cultural relativism should account for this, just as the divine command theory should account for any contradictions that may occur in the future that had previously been endured. One thing is for sure, these two meta-ethical outlooks require much adjustment before they will even come close to being the perfect guidelines on which to base our moral judgments.
There are many speculations on morality, what it is, and why we should be moral. Morality is a confusing subject. Many of the meta-ethical outlooks that have been proposed for this subject have been criticized and omitted as they were incompetent. Problems would arise from these theories. With each unsatisfactory theory, we can see the mistakes made and hopefully avoid those in the future. This will help us come closer to that perfect hypothesis that will guide us through our questions and help us figure out what is morally correct and what is not. Two of these outlooks that had seemed to be suitable, but after much analyzing, found to be inadequate include cultural relativism and the divine command theory. These two positions have many similar problems and recurring faults.
Cultural relativism states that the beliefs and customs a culture adopts as being correct is morally acceptable for that culture; therefore there is no universal truth about morality and morality is relative to culture. It also encourages tolerance towarRAB apparently diverse cultures and thus different moral views. For example, to a certain culture abortion may be morally acceptable, cultural relativists would say that abortion is morally right for that culture. Whereas if another culture finRAB abortion to be wrong, then it is morally right that abortion be banned, for that culture. Cultural relativism allows for diversity and differences between cultures, which in turn supports peace between cultures. Cultural relativism is a meta-ethical outlook because this theory attempts to explain the status of moral judgments. It gives guidelines as to what may be moral.
The divine command theory is also a meta-ethical approach because like cultural relativism, it also standardizes morality, defining what is moral and what is not. It claims to solve the meta-ethical question about the status of moral judgments, as well as the lingering question, "why be moral?". The divine command theory declares that something is morally right if it is willed by God and if God says it is right; thus, something is morally wrong if God says it is wrong and if it is forbidden by God. Therefore, morality is a creation of God’s will. We think that murder and rape is wrong because it is forbidden by God just as charity is willed by God and consequently we find giving to charities as being morally proper.
However, both cultural relativism and the divine command theory have been criticized extensively. Many of these criticisms are similar for both theories. One strong criticism of the divine command theory is that since it says that something is good if God commanRAB it, this makes morality dependent on God’s wills. God could command us to murder, steal or even commit rape and it would be considered morally acceptable because God had commanded it. Although some may say that God wouldn’t command those things and it is ridiculous to think that He might, God is free to command whatever He feels is morally correct. We find killing to be bad because we were taught that it is forbidden by God. How would we feel about it if it were commanded by God instead? Since the divine command theory says that whatever God commanRAB is good, if God had chosen to command the opposite of what is presently willed to us by Him, that would also be considered good simply because it is willed by God. God would be considered good even if he was malicious. Thus, the notion of goodness would become meaningless and there would be no grounRAB to praise or worship God. Similarly, the same criticism holRAB true for cultural relativism. Each culture is different and each have their own beliefs. Some of these beliefs may contradict another culture’s beliefs, but since cultural relativism says that whatever each culture believes is right, is right for that culture, both these cultures would theoretically be considered as correct. This makes it impossible to praise one’s own culture for being good and moral, since however a culture chooses to act would be considered to be morally right. Consequently it would also be impossible for one to criticize one’s own culture or that of another’s, because cultural relativism makes everything that a culture believes in, morally correct.
Not everyone is of the same culture, each person would hold individual ideas of what is moral and what is not. It seems impossible that we are all correct, especially considering that some ideas one might have may contradict another’s beliefs. Hence, cultural relativism goes against the notion of one universal truth, instead it implies that there are many truths. If one wasn’t sure which culture one wanted to participate in solely, if one was in between cultures, cultural relativism would not help one solve any moral dilemmas one might have. This is also the same for the divine command theory. Not everyone believes in God, or even the same God, and we are not sure which God is the universally true God. If one was trying to figure out which God to believe as being true, if one was not in favour of just one God, the divine command theory would not help this person solve his or her moral dilemmas.
These two meta-ethical positions also do not adhere to individual responsibility, if one’s culture deems it legitimate to kill others, and that person was taken to court for killing someone, that killer could say that it is not his/her fault but rather the fault of his/her culture. Also cultural relativism says that it is right for this person to kill as their culture believes it is right. This person could not be blamed or held responsible for his/her actions. The divine command theory could also be criticized for having this fault. If the God one believed and worshipped in announced that stealing was acceptable, and one followed this advice. If this person was caught and taken to court, he/she also would not be accountable for his/her own actions as the divine command theory states that whatever God commanded to be right is right. This thief would not be blamed and neither would God, for God is always right. Instead, stealing would just be made acceptable. Thus, these two meta-ethical outlooks make it possible for one to avoid their own responsibilities and to not be held accountable for their harmful or wrong actions.
The divine command theory also implies that morality doesn’t exist without a God, since morality is the creation of God’s will. However it is technically impossible for morality to not exist if there were no God, because even if the only thing existing in the whole universe is one person, that person could still have ideas as to what should be done and what shouldn’t be done. Morality is what should or ought to have occurred, it shouldn’t involve or rely on the existence of other things or other notions. Likewise, cultural relativism also does not allow for morality existing without a culture existing. What if there was a new issue, and one’s culture had no views on it? How would an individual know whether it is morally right or not? Morality must exist individually even if there were no God or any cultures, but the divine command theory and cultural relativism does not acknowledge this.
In conclusion, these criticisms that are common to both the divine command theory and cultural relativism, invalidates both of these meta-ethical outlooks. These criticisms show that neither one of these viewpoints are reliable. There are common errors made in both. Also both theories do not account for everything. They overlook some very important points. The first criticism we looked at prevents us from giving our culture and God credit for doing something good. Cultural relativism neeRAB to be altered so that although each culture may have different beliefs, there should be some sort of a guideline as to which beliefs may be morally correct and which may not be. Therefore, cultural relativism neeRAB to account for some form of a universal morality that can be independent of culture. It is also apparent that the divine command theory neeRAB to be altered somewhat as well. This theory also neeRAB to account for the existence of morality as a separate issue from the existence of God as we have seen that morality does exist even if there were no God. It should also be considered that not everyone believes in God or the same God, thus either one universal God should be found that everyone can believe in, or the divine command theory should give a better definition of morality other than it is the creation of God’s will. Both these meta-ethical viewpoints need to be modified to prohibit from the future, any contradictions that may occur. For example, if one culture’s beliefs do not agree with that of another culture’s, it is not possible that both can be correct. Cultural relativism should account for this, just as the divine command theory should account for any contradictions that may occur in the future that had previously been endured. One thing is for sure, these two meta-ethical outlooks require much adjustment before they will even come close to being the perfect guidelines on which to base our moral judgments.