Download Document

Sierra Garland
Phil 308-50
3/12/16
Cultural Relativism is a theory that is a type of ethical relativism. As stated by Russ
Shafer-Landau, “Cultural Relativism claims that the correct moral standards are relative to
cultures or societies”. In other words, an act is deemed morally right or wrong based on
cultures and societies. For any act token, A, "A is morally right" =df A is permitted by the moral
code of the society of its agent at the time of its performance. A society is a collection of
people, living proximity to each other, sharing a language, religion, cuisine, and culture. The
moral code of society at time is the system of moral rules and beliefs accepted among the
members of that society at that time. The Reformer’s Dilemma presents another side of the
theory. The Reformer’s Dilemma states:
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then every moral reformer is mistaken.
2. It is not the case that every moral reformer is mistaken.
3. It is not the case that Cultural Relativism is true.
A moral reformer is a person who believes that some acts permitted (prohibited) by the
moral code of his/her society are in fact morally wrong (morally right). This dilemma is
saying that every moral reformer or every person who believes that some acts
permitted by the moral code of society are in fact morally wrong is mistaken. It is not
true that every person that believes some acts permitted by the moral code of a society
is mistaken. Therefore, there is no way that Cultural Relativism can be true. A Cultural
Relativist would answer the dilemma by simply stating that every moral reformer is
mistaken. They would use the Cultural Differences argument which states:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. If different societies have different moral codes, then Cultural Relativism is true.
3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is true.
This logic makes sense because since there are many different societies and cultures,
they all have different moral codes. Their moral codes could be very similar or very
different, it all depends what societies are being viewed. If an act is accepted by the
moral code of the society of the individual performing the act at the given time, then
following the Cultural Relativism theory, the act would only be morally wrong or
right based on the moral codes of their society. In this case, I agree with the Cultural
Differences argument because of the fact that every society is extremely different
and if their society believes the act is morally wrong or right, that is true because the
person performing the act is from that specific society.
Simple Subjectivism or ethical subjectivism is another type of ethical relativism. The Simple
Subjectivism theory is based more around the individual rather than the culture or society. Russ
Shafer-Landau states, “Ethical Subjectivism claims that the correct moral standards are those
endorsed by each individual. For any person, P, if P says, "x is right (wrong)," then P means
exactly what P would mean if P were to say, "I approve (disapprove) of x.” An argument that
goes against Simple Subjectivism is The No-Disagreements Argument which states:
1. If Simple Subjectivism is true, then there are no genuine moral disagreements.
2. There are genuine moral disagreements.
3. Therefore, Simple Subjectivism is false.
If a genuine disagreement occurs between two people then one of them expresses or believes
some proposition that the other takes to be false. The No-Disagreements Argument basically
states that all people are right and there are no genuine moral disagreements. Obviously, there
are many genuine moral disagreements. Therefore, Simple Subjectivism is false. A simple
subjectivist would argue that there are no genuine moral disagreements therefore making
simple subjectivism true. I agree with the No-Disagreements Argument because I know that
there are many genuine moral disagreements that occur simply because there are so many
individuals with different ideas and views.