Cultural Relativism as a Moral Ideology: Scientific Tool or Unsound Whim?

Cultural Relativism as a Moral Ideology: Scientific Tool or Unsound Whim?

(Why is Cultural Relativism so problematic when used as a moral theory instead of a scientific tool?)

In the era of early colonization, the differences in language and culture led to many studies on the indigenous peoples of the New World, who many thought to have been the ancestors of the current "modern" colonizers. At the time, it was bewildering for the Europeans to think of those individuals as fellow human beings, outside of the understanding that they were the ancient savage versions of themselves. They felt the need to try to educate them and bring them back into their "civilized" society. When newer evidence came to light, they realized that the indigenous were not ancient versions of ourselves. This concept led to Cultural Relativism, which works well as a scientific tool for anthropologists but should only be used within that field. 

Cultural Relativism states that one cannot have a cultural bias against the artistic traditions of a different society. Anthropology is the study of humans, typically people outside of one's culture. It is difficult to do good science, which is supposed to be dispassionate and objective, while making moral judgments about societal observation. This difficulty can lead to Cultural Relativism, which is problematic as an ethical theory because cultures are fluid, creating a paradox since cultures have different beliefs, and only a few social customs and traditions across all cultures have similar bases. Within Cultural Relativism, one will witness the ability that people have to argue that they are justified to commit heinous and horrendous acts simply because it is a social custom or tradition. According to ideological Cultural Relativism, morality is just a matter of cultural perspective, and we should not judge those different from us. We will explore these four apparent attempts to use cultural Relativism as an ideology of morals and an additional effort at moral Relativism in the end.

Here is the first attempt we will examine:

• (Premise 1): Different groups of people believe different things about morality. 

• (Conclusion): Moral truths differ from culture to culture, yet all cultural moral understandings are true.

This argument does not hold because there is no premise with a logical connection. The premise does not force the truth of the conclusion. Cultures believe different things about morality; even within a given group/culture/society, these beliefs vary from person to person. Moral truths differ from society to society, yet within these societies, all their moral truths are true, so regardless of all societies, all moral truths believed to exist must be true, right? There is, however, no apparent truth force to realize in the conclusion. Since this attempt does not have a logical connection and fails, we must try another. 

Below is the second argument we will explore:

• (Premise 1): Different cultural groups of people believe different things about morality. 

• (Premise 2): When different cultural groups have different beliefs, it is because there is no objective truth. 

• (Premise 3): When there is no objective truth, all beliefs are equally correct.

• (Conclusion): Therefore, The moral beliefs of all cultural groups are equally correct. 

This argument fails because the conclusion must be proper if the premises are true. Yet the second premise is false, stating, "When different cultural groups have different beliefs, it is because there is no objective truth." This proposition does not logically follow because people have different opinions, and all views are equally correct. 

Genital mutilation is a correct cultural tradition if you live in certain parts of Africa. Yet there is also circumcision. Most cultures around the world say that genital mutilation is wrong and that there are a lot of medical and emotional impacts on the females who get this traditional right of passage. Compare this to circumcision, which has proven to be beneficial for the individuals who get this procedure. The ages at which doctors perform these procedures are drastically different. Circumcision typically happens from an hour after birth up till you die, whereas typically, genital mutilation happens as a right of passage into womanhood, typically between the ages of 13-18. This drastic change occurs when a religious figure performs a last rite of passage, generally done once later in life, compared to something optional for males. In both cases, one typically has no choice on whether or not one wants to participate, yet both are done throughout generations of families. This revelation further proves the point that this attempt is wrong because when looking at genital mutilation, it is clear that other cultures do not think that it is correct to perform this type of 'ritual,' as it causes great harm to the women who receive it.

Below is the third argument we will look at:

• (Premise 1): Morality merely describes a society's social customs and traditions. 

• (Premise 2): Social customs and traditions differ from society to society. 

• (Conclusion): Therefore, morality is relative. What is morally right and wrong is only right and wrong within a given culture/society. 

This argument is not valid because it means nothing could be right or wrong since it makes disagreement impossible. The moral claim explains that there are reasons behind why this is right or wrong or in the gray area. Moral claims do not just believe something but reasons back it up; however, when new evidence comes to light, those claims can change. A further problem is that the argument must support Cultural Relativism, which, as a moral theory, requires morality to be authentic.

Teaching young children about what is and is not morally acceptable can typically be done by sending them to a religious place of worship. People from all different cultural backgrounds, even some atheists, do this because certain things have an unsaid agreement that they are, in fact, right or wrong to do. However, throughout all these cultures, each child learns differently based on the location and religion in which their parents grew up. It is easy to focus on the contradiction of a non-practicing person sending their child to these religious places, but they do so because they trust these places to teach their children some universal norms. The fact that even the most spiritual people choose not to have their kids follow a religion, but even non-religious people will choose to have their kids be religious or at least for them to learn morality in a spiritual place. This fact proves that morality is not a description of a society's social customs and traditions and that there are some pretty universal moral truths in humans. If morality is argued both ways, it can be from culture to culture. In addition, disagreement is possible between cultures, rendering this argument false in two ways.

Below is the fourth and final Argument for Cultural Relativism: 

• (Premise 1): There is no right and wrong if there is no such thing as right and wrong; all beliefs that assert rightness and wrongness as natural are incorrect. 

• (Premise 2): All cultures have beliefs that assert rightness and wrongness are fundamental. 

• (Conclusion): Therefore, All cultures have incorrect beliefs about rightness and wrongness. 

This argument does not work because right and wrong are abstract concepts. If people did not exist, right and wrong would not exist, yet people do exist so right and wrong must also exist. 

Since right and wrong are abstract concepts, a serial killer/child rapist could use the argument that it does not apply to his case since people can not judge him from cultures that have beliefs that assert rightness and wrongness as accurate. He should not be considered for his actions since all cultures have incorrect beliefs. Who can be a judge or jury if all cultures have erroneous assumptions about rightness and wrongness? If the serial killer/child rapist were to stand trial or not stand trial, not only would the premise that 'all cultures have an incorrect set of beliefs about rightness and wrongness' be false in the sense that it is an inherent evil and wrong to murder and sexual assault people, but ESPECIALLY children. They are further proving that this attempt is false. 

This realization leads us to conclude that Cultural Relativism as an ideology of morals is false. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory has proven unclear if it is sound. Nevertheless, it is valid. Even if it is true that "right and wrong" are concepts created by humans, it is not clear that they do not exist. If such things are not real, then beauty, justice, love, lying, honesty, irony, and winning also do not exist. It would be delusional to say we live in a world in which there is no lying. Just because right and wrong may not have the same ontological or existing status as a rock or a nuclear bomb, it does not necessarily follow that they don't exist. Yet this also leads us into the debate about Moral Relativism.

Those attracted to Cultural Relativism because they like the idea that moral truth is accurate but not universal and that it varies between cultures might find Moral Relativism tempting. Moral Relativism has a typical relationship with cultural Relativism in that it denies the existence of universal moral truths. Still, instead of arguing that moral beliefs are just an expression of cultural attitudes, moral relativists say that an action is right or wrong only concerning the values of a particular society. This belief pairs with the claim that because moral truth is relative, members of each society should refrain from judging the practices of members of other institutions.

Below is the principle argument for Moral Relativism: 

• (Premise 1): Moral Truth is relative to individual cultures and societies. 

• (Premise 2): If moral truth is relative, then all moralities are equally correct. 

• (Premise 3): If all moralities are equally correct, we must never judge anyone outside our society or tell them how they ought to behave. 

• (Conclusion): Therefore, We must never tell anyone outside our society how they ought to behave.

If moral Relativism were true, then no society has ever engaged in a morally lousy practice that would render slavery, imperial colonization, public executions, rape, and many other atrocious acts ethically acceptable.

Instead of searching for reasoning as to how these attempts can work, it might be best to look within and see how one can change or adapt so that one no longer needs these ridiculous attempts to deflect blame for action, belief, or tradition. Cultural Relativism is a scientific tool for anthropologists and ought to remain so. If cultural Relativism were used for something other than as a scientific tool, the consequences could be drastic.