The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Live and let live is a principle that has been used to justify tolerance among people who see differently from others on matters of ethics and principles of life. It is little wonder then that there are ethical relativists who would defend cultures and practices that seem to be abhorred in their own culture. This is largely because one cannot use one’s own culture to define another person’s culture and his understanding of right and wrong. Yet there are others who do believe that cultures maybe relative but morals are standard or at least they should be in their view. These are the non-relativists and they do tend to make a convincing case for themselves.

        The cultural relativists have come up with five tenets that according to them should define how we relate to other cultures different from our own and it is on those five tenets that they may obtain their defense of some cultural practices. The five tenets that they use generally tend to revolve around the first rule that different societies have different moral codes. Whereas this is true there should be a consideration for what the beliefs are and what is really true. Take a case in point where a Saudi woman was gang raped. Instead of the perpetrators getting served with justice the woman had to be dealt a harsh sentence that was for something much lesser than the rapist’s offence. A relativist may argue that this is common place in Saudi. It is a patriarchal society where the place of women is lowly. In the third tenet that tells us that there is no common moral rule that can hold for all people at all times, I believe that it is a myopic view of the situation at the time. However this is the way that things are done in the Arab world. Respect for their culture customs and beliefs must be upheld and that would be a relativists biggest point of argument in justifying what we may otherwise perceive as harsh cruel or backwards.

        However there come the non-relativists. They are a group who do not necessarily believe that their own culture is superior to another but that essentially there should be a moral standard that should be upheld the world over. This is regardless of their culture or religion. In actual fact these standards actually already exist because there is a common practice that determines that murder and lying is wrong. A society that may not hold these values cannot be called a society as it will disintegrate very fast. Some moral rules must exist for a society to exist.  Non relativists would argue that some practices when viewed through a relativists point of view is the endorsement and passive participation in the perpetration of grave injustices. They would argue that for some practices to be allowed to happen they would have to show that they do not hinder the well-being of another and that they are in line with promoting the welfare if the society at large. A non-relativists problem with a relativist would be the fact that relativists argue that nothing is wrong if the morals of that society deem it to be correct. In one way it maybe a tempting way to look at things but that is not the correct way of doing things. It is almost the equivalent of stating that no one is morally bereft as long as they are doing things that seem right in their eyes. In a non-relativists views one can respect another person’s culture but there is always room for improvement of a cultures morals. This is because as said earlier culture is relative but morals are not, in the eyes of a non-relativist. As a result a non-relativist will seek to criticize the practices stated as not furthering the welfare of the society as well subjugating the people directly affected by the cultures.