Download Document

Tatianna Griffin
Test 1
PHIL 308-50
Cultural Relativism is a metaethical theory under forms of subjectivism.
Metaethics is the attempt to understand the fundamental nature of values and evaluate
expressions or statements. Subjectivism involves how moral terms refer to subjective
properties and how moral claims are subjectively true or false. The theory of Cultural
Relativism states that for any act token, A, “A is morally right” if A is not prohibited by
the moral code of the society of A at the time the act was performed.
The Cultural Differences Argument states that: 1. Different societies have
different moral codes. 2. If difference societies have different moral codes, then Cultural
Relativism is true. 3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is true. 1,2 MP. It is a valid
argument that starts off by stating that different moral codes are present in different
societies. It could be true or false; however, if it were true, then stating that different
societies have different moral codes provides evidence to the fact that not all things
accepted or seen as “morally right” in one culture are accepted or seen as “morally right”
in another culture. Moral codes can be distinctly and vastly different, allowing for certain
act tokens to be deemed socially acceptable and “morally right” while those act tokens
may not be in other moral codes. Premise 2 states that if Premise 1 is true, then the whole
theory of cultural relativism is true. Cultural Relativism is based on different societies
having different moral codes. Without different moral codes, there would not be a
difference in “morally right” and accepted act tokens. It would simply be a moral code
shared by all societies where moral claims are subjective and all act tokens that are
“morally right” will be morally right to everyone and all “morally wrong” act tokens will
be wrong to everyone. The differences in moral codes in different societies are the
primary basis for the argument of Cultural Relativism. Moral reformers play a huge part
in formulating a response to cultural relativism. A moral reformer is someone who
believes that some acts permitted or prohibited by the moral code of his or her society are
in fact morally wrong or morally right. The Reformer’s Dilemma states that: 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. Therefore, it is not the case that Cultural
Relativism is true. 1,2 MT. This poses a problem for moral reformers because if cultural
relativism is true, a person who thinks an act token in a different society is “morally
wrong” is mistaken because that act token could be seen as “morally right” in their
society. On the other hand, if moral reformers are not mistaken, then cultural relativism is
not true. Moral claims can be solely based on society through Cultural Relativism, and if
reformers have cases where acts that are permitted or prohibited are actually morally
wrong or right, then cultural relativism cannot be true because if a reformer can prove
that a prohibited act in a different society is actually “morally right,” then it is. Therefore,
with the Reformer’s Dilemma, Cultural Relativism cannot be true. If Cultural Relativism
was true, then there would not be world famous moral reformers such as Gandhi or
Martin Luther King, Jr. The idea that moral claims are born through the conventions of
historic and modern society has been on the rise ever since father of American
Anthropology, Franz Boas, introduced Social Anthropology to the U.S. He and other
social anthropologists have developed more subtle approaches to the idea of Cultural
Relativism, but there are some claims and aspects that have remained constant. Cultural
relativists use different aspects to justify their position on the theory and argument. They
use a combination of conceptual, empirical, and normative considerations in order to
explain their support for Cultural Relativism. A couple of claims that cultural relativists
use as justification state that, “(a) The empirical observation that there is a significant
degree of diversity in norms, values and beliefs across cultures and historic periods,
known as descriptive relativism. (b) An inductive argument to the effect that failures in
previous attempts to resolve disagreements arising from (a) show that there are no
universal criteria for adjudicating between different world-views. (c) The methodological
assumption that human behavior and thought carry the imprint of their cultural and social
context such that biology by itself is not sufficient for explaining many of their most
important features, especially those with respect to which cultures differ. (d) The
normative principle of a need for tolerance and acceptance towards other points of view,
which leads to so-called “normative or prescriptive cultural relativism,” or the positions
that cultural relativism is a moral requirement” (Baghramian & Carter). Their
justifications simply show non-cultural relativists that by observing different cultures,
one can see that there is a vast amount of diversity in the cultures and societies across the
world and across time periods. They explain that if there are any issues with claim a, that
there are no universal guidelines for what is morally right or wrong or for what is socially
accepted or frowned upon. They explain that genetic and biological contrasts are not
sufficient for explaining cultural differences and a difference in how humans view
morally right and wrong acts. For their last point of justification, cultural relativists claim
that there is a need for acceptance of all other points of view, and if that need exists then
there must be a difference in points of view.
There are also objections to these claims that cultural relativists use to justify their
position. A lot of anthropologists and biologists have made claims that dispute the extent
to which the empirical considerations should be used. “Kinship, death and its attendant
rituals of mourning, birth, the experience of empathy, expressions of sympathy and fear,
and the biological needs that give rise to these, are some of the constant elements of
human experience that belie the seeming diversity reported by ethnographers (Brown
2004)” (Baghramian & Carter). With that they are trying to say how certain basic human
acts and needs are universally shared by everyone and do not serve as substantial
evidence to support the diversity in cultures explained by cultural relativists. There are
also scientists who dispute claim c because they believe there are biological and
evolutionary approaches that explain what is common to all cultures even if they have
slight differences. “Other critics, Pope Benedict XVI for instance, in his very first homily
delivered upon election (18 April 2005), reject and condemn prescriptive cultural
relativism as a harbinger of nihilism and an “anything goes” extreme permissiveness”
(Baghramian & Carter). There are many critics, including Pope Benedict XVI, that
dismiss claim d supported by cultural relativists.
There are more arguments against Cultural Relativism than for it, and more
arguments for the Reformer’s Dilemma than against it. “If morality, as Cultural
Relativism argues it is, is nothing more and nothing less than what a particular culture
says is right or wrong, then MLK, Ghandi and other social reformers are very simply
immoral. They disagreed with the central norms of their culture, i.e. what was in fact
‘right’. So they were ‘morally wrong’ for protesting” (Chiariello). If Cultural Relativism
is true, then disagreeing with what is seen as “right” in a certain culture makes a moral
reformer mistaken and immoral.
Simple, or Individual/Personal, Subjectivism (SS) is another form of metaethical
subjectivism. SS states that for any person, P, that says, “x is morally right or wrong,”
then P means the same thing as if P said, “I approve or disapprove of x.” For example, if
Joe was walking down the street and saw an act that he thinks is morally wrong, then that
would be the same thing as Joe saying he disapproves of that act. The Infallibility
Argument refers to a person’s moral infallibility. Moral Infallibility refers to when a
person makes moral claims that are automatically true due to the fact that it is impossible
for him or her to be mistaken about what is morally right or wrong. The Moral
Infallibility Argument states as follows: 1. If SS is true, then we are all morally infallible.
2. It is not the case that we are all morally infallible. 3. Therefore, SS is false. If the
theory of Simple Subjectivism is true, then everyone is “infallible with respect to moral
judgments” (Rachels). The fact of the matter is, people are not morally infallible because
what they think is a morally wrong act, could be a morally right act. If Joe was walking
down the street and in the house next door he hears crashing and loud noises and voices,
and yells out “that is morally wrong!” But in reality, it is young children playing a
pretend battle game with one another, and there is nothing morally wrong with that.
Therefore, Joe would not be infallible. It is not the case that we are all morally infallible
because moral judgments differ and no one is ever always right. Therefore, SS is false
based on the sole fact that no one is always right on every moral claim they make. They
can change their minds or come to the conclusion that they were originally wrong.
Subjectivists have come back with reasons why the Infallibility Argument does not rule
out Simple Subjectivism. “Simple Subjectivism improves on it by indexing moral
properties to subjects and referring to dispositions to cause responses rather than actual
responses. What makes something wrong-for-Mary, for example, is that Mary would
disapprove of it, were she aware of it. A related relativist proposal is that something is
wrong-for-Mary if and only if Mary accepts a normative standard or framework that
prohibits it (Harman 1975)” (Kauppinen). What she is saying is that Premise 2 of the
Infallibility Argument is false, and that a moral claim is true if the person is aware of it
and accepts the foundation of where the claim came from. On the other hand, it is true
that no one is infallible because observations can change conclusions of thoughts and
moral claims. “We are sometimes wrong in our evaluations; and when we discover that
we are mistaken, we may want to correct our judgments. But if Simple Subjectivism were
correct, this would be impossible, because Simple Subjectivism implies that each of us is
infallible” (Rachels). SS is not plausible because of the fact that no one is capable of
making all right moral claims. Minds can change and people can realize that what moral
claims they have made are wrong, which makes them fallible.
Works Cited
Maria Baghramien & J. Adam Carter. “Relativism”. Sept 11, 2015.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#CulRel
Paul Chiariello. “Cultural Relativism: 4 Arguments For & Against”. May 31,
2013. http://appliedsentience.com/2013/05/31/cultural-relativism-4-argumentsfor-against/
James Rachels. “Subjectivism”.http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/emotive.pdf
James Rachels. “Subjectivism in Ethics”.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/104_Master_File/104_Readings/Rachels/Subjec
tivism%20in%20Ethics.pdf
Antti Kauppinen. “Moral Sentimentalism”. January 29, 2014.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-sentimentalism/#SubRel