THE CHALLENGE OF

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
James Rachels
!
!

Bioethics
Jake Monaghan
University at Buffalo
8/27/2014
1

OFFICE HOURS

Tuesdays, 2-3pm; Wednesdays, 11am-12pm

*North Campus*

PLEASE COME TO OFFICE HOURS

NORMATIVITY

normative statements are about how things ought to be

or what is good/bad

they are claims that express value judgments

factive/descriptive statements are about how things are

IS/OUGHT distinction

ethics is a normative discipline (arguably, so is health

care)
3

A COMPLICATION

normative statements can look like factive/

descriptive statements

on some theories, normative statements will be

true

so, even though Torturing cats is wrong

describes an action and might be a fact, it is still
a normative statement

META-ETHICS

meta-ethics is concerned with the nature of

morality rather than particular questions about
what we ought to do

compare: abortion is wrong with the claim

that abortion is wrong, like all other moral
claims, is entirely subjective

SUBJECTIVITY & OBJECTIVITY

when someone has experiences, we say they

are the SUBJECT of the experiences

the thing which the subject experiences is the

OBJECT of the experience

SUBJECTIVITY & OBJECTIVITY

subjective claims depend for their truth ON

THE SUBJECT

objective claims depend for their truth ON THE

OBJECT

*there are ways in which a statement might be

subjective or relative, but still either universally
true or universally false
7

EXAMPLES

sexy and funny are subjective;

to be sexy or funny means to be such a way that

people find you sexy or funny

the truth of the claim she is funny is

dependent on the subject (mind-dependent)

EXAMPLES

squareness is objective

to be square is to be a shape with 4 equal sides

depends on the object; is true even if no one

exists to look at the square (mind-independent)

IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE?

no = moral anti-realism
yes = moral realism

SOME META-ETHICAL THEORIES

reductionism
REALISM

intuitionism

cultural relativism

subjectivism

divine command
theory

nihilism

individual subjectivism

ANTI-REALISM

non-cognitivism

No, Donny, these men are nihilists. Theres nothing to be

afraid of.

RELATIVITY

problematic vs. harmless relativity

A. the truth of a moral claim depends on the
person/group/divinity (i.e. SUBJECTIVISM)
B. the truth of a moral claim depends on its
context

the latter (B) is obviously true and not

inconsistent with moral realism
13

TRUTH-APTNESS

aka truth-value; some claims are either true or false,

others are neither true nor false

compare: this text is green and Boo on abortion!

subjective moral judgements are potentially true in a

universal way (i.e. they can be mistaken)

consider the case of color (response-dependence)

14

A PRIMER ON ARGUMENTS

Argument: a set of premises leading to a conclusion

Premise: reasons offered in support of a conclusion

Validity: arguments are valid if the form of the

argument guarantees that the conclusion follows
from the premises

Soundness: an argument is sound if it is valid and its

premises are true
15

A VALID ARGUMENT
1. All humans are mortal
2. Socrates is a human
C. Therefore Socrates is mortal

(All A are B)
(C is A)
(So C is B)

AN INVALID ARGUMENT
1. All humans are mortal

(All A is B)

2. Paulas Donuts are the best donuts in Buffalo (S is P)

C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

(C is B)

A SOUND ARGUMENT
1. Causing unnecessary pain is wrong

(S is P)

2. Most meat-eating causes unnecessary pain (R is S)

C. Therefore, eating meat is wrong

(So R is P)

AN UNSOUND ARGUMENT

This is valid, but its premises arent all true

1. All swans are white

2. My pet bird is a swan
C. Therefore, my pet bird is white

(All A are B)
(C is A)
(So C is B)

REMEMBER THIS:

we must look for two things in an argument:

does the form or structure guarantee that if the

premises are true, the conclusion will be true?

if it does, are the premises true?

if you answered yes to both, you have an

intellectual obligation to accept the conclusion
(except in the case of paradoxes)

RACHELS INITIAL OBSERVATION

Different cultures have different moral codes

Darius, the King of Persia, noticed that the

Greeks and the Callatians disagree about the
proper treatment of the dead

cannibalism vs. cremation

21

WHAT TO DO?

Burn, bury, or eat corpses?

monogamy or polygamy?

is infanticide permissible?

can we kill the useless elderly?

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

according to this theory,

1. Different societies have different moral codes.

2. There is no objective standard that can be used
to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no
special status; it is merely one among many.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics; that is, there are no
moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right
within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says
that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least
within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of
other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance
toward the practices of other cultures.

Although it may seem that these six

propositions go naturally together, they are
independent of one another, in the sense that
some of them might be false even if others are
true. In what follows, we will try to identify
what is correct in Cultural Relativism, but we
will also be concerned to expose what is
mistaken about it. (Rachels, The Challenge of
Cultural Relativism, p. 3)

WHY BELIEVE IN CR?

CR is a moral theory; like theories in other

fields, we can examine and analyze it

(although the method of examining it will be

different)

to start, ask: why do people think they are

justified in believing that CR is true?

THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

ARGUMENT

Rachels: look at form of the argument used to

support CR

Premise: some set of facts about different

moral codes

Conclusion: the nature of morality is

1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat

the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it
was right to eat the dead.
2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither
objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from
culture to culture.

1. The Eskimos see nothing wrong with

infanticide, whereas Americans believe
infanticide is immoral.
2. Therefore, infanticide is neither
objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from
culture to culture.

THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

ARGUMENT
1. Different cultures have different moral
codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in
morality. Right and wrong are only matters of
opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.

IS IT SOUND?

NO! The argument moves from beliefs about

what is the case to what actually is the case

consider another case:

Scientists disagree about physics

Therefore, physics is subjective

WHERE WE STAND NOW

The CDA, offered in defense of CR, is unsound

This does not make CR false (by itself); it only

means that if you want to defend CR, you need
a new argument

THE CONSEQUENCES OF TAKING

CR SERIOUSLY

The main argument which supports CR is a bad

argument, so there is nothing counting in favor
of CR

If we find arguments against CR, then CR will

be in really bad shape, and the theory worthy
of rejection

1. WE COULD NO LONGER SAY THAT

THE CUSTOMS OF OTHER SOCIETIES ARE
MORALLY INFERIOR TO OUR OWN.

this is one of the points cultural relativists find

most important

it is plausible when thinking about funeral

practices, but not plausible when thinking
about other practices

warfare for taking slaves, genocide, etc.

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST CR
1. If CR is true, then Americans cannot criticize
the Nazis (much less use force to stop them)
2. So either CR is true, or we can criticize and use
force to stop the Nazis
3. We can criticize and use force to stop the Nazis
C. Therefore, CR is not true (is false)

2. WE COULD DECIDE WHETHER ACTIONS

ARE RIGHT OR WRONG JUST BY CONSULTING
THE STANDARDS OF OUR SOCIETY.

in other words, we could no longer criticize our

own moral code

since cultural relativism says that the truth of a

moral claim depends on the culture from which
it is made, our moral code is entirely true

A SIMILAR PROBLEM

Rachels does not mention this, but it is another

significant problem

What is our moral code?

Does the moral code of the US approve of or

condemn abortion?

The CR needs an answer to this question in

order to make their theory coherent

3. THE IDEA OF MORAL PROGRESS

IS CALLED INTO DOUBT.

If there is no independent standard of morality,

then a change from one moral code to another
moral code is arbitrary

MLK was wasting his time according to the CR!

All social reformers are wasting their time,

unless the society is not living up to its own
code

ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST

CR
1. If CR is true, then moral progress is impossible
2. Moral progress is possible
C. Therefore, CR is not true (is false)

WHY THERE IS LESS

DISAGREEMENT THAN IT SEEMS

cultural anthropologists stress the vast

differences between different cultures, but they
have a motivation to exaggerate the
differences

thus, there is less disagreement than it seems at

first, and the original motivation for CR is
undermined

EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES
WITHOUT APPEAL TO VALUE

if another culture refuses to eat cows, it seems

that they have very different morals than
Americans

but WHY they do not eat cows matters

if they think peoples souls end up in cows, then

the refusal to eat cows is explained by a
difference in factive/descriptive beliefs, rather
than normative beliefs

HOW ALL CULTURES HAVE SOME

VALUES IN COMMON
1. Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if
they are not given extensive care for a period of years.
2. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the
young would not survive, and the older members of the
group would not be replaced. After a while the group
would die out.
3. Therefore, any cultural group that continues to
exist must care for its young. infants that are not cared
for must be the exception rather than the rule.

UNIVERSAL VALUES

Two more examples:

Presumption in favor of truth-telling

Prohibition on murder

No complex society could exist without valuing

honestly and human life to the extent that lying
and murder are prohibited (lying prohibited
most of the time)

JUDGING A CULTURAL PRACTICE

TO BE UNDESIRABLE

example: the 1996 case of Fauziya Kassindja

female circumcision/excision/genital mutilation

if we say that excision is bad, and grant Fauziya

asylum, are we merely applying our own
cultural standard (does such a thing exist)?

IS THERE A CULTURE-NEUTRAL
STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG?

Against excision:

Excision is painful

results in the loss of a significant source of

pleasure

has painful short and long term effects

IS THERE A CULTURE-NEUTRAL
STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG?

In favor of excision:

women incapable of sexual pleasure are less promiscuous

so less unwanted pregnancies

less infidelity in marriage

women who do not care about sex will spend more time
paying attention to their children and husbands

men claim to enjoy sex with excised women more

NOTICE THIS:

the reasons given for or against excision seek

to justify it by appealing to whether it is helpful
or harmful on the whole

A CULTURE-NEUTRAL STANDARD

Here, then, is the standard that
might most reasonably be used in
thinking about excision: We may ask
whether the practice promotes or hinders
the welfare of the people whose lives are
affected by it. (Rachels, p. 11)

RELUCTANCE TO CRITICIZE?
1. we have interfered with customs in the past,
with disastrous results (e.g. European farming
techniques leading to famine in Africa)

but there is a difference in criticizing and

acting on the criticism

sometimes we should act, sometimes not

RELUCTANCE TO CRITICIZE?
2. People think that tolerance is a virtue

This certainly is the case, but to be tolerant does

not require thinking all moral beliefs and customs
are equal

In fact, if this were the case, then tolerance wouldnt

exist

to tolerate is to put up with something we

disagree with

RELUCTANCE TO CRITICIZE?

People may not want to express contempt for the

society being criticized

This is important: criticism does not imply contempt

nor does criticism imply that the entirety of the

culture or society is contemptible

rather, societies have a mix of good and bad

customs

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM CR?

(this section is from a longer version of the essay

which I did not assign)

Do not think that all of your preferences are based on

an absolute rational standard (e.g. funeral practices)

Keep an open mind; CR can be an antidote to

dogmatism (e.g. homosexuality)

We can accept these points without going on to

accept the whole theory (Rachels)

WHY DOES THIS MATTER FOR

BIOETHICS?

we will not solve all of the questions and

problems in metaethics any time soon

nonetheless, accurate moral beliefs are

incredibly important, and nihilism is unworkable

the rest of the semester will focus on

philosophers making and defending moral
claims

WHY DOES THIS MATTER FOR

BIOETHICS?

the Lebowski
response is
unacceptable!