A Short Essay Against Cultural Relativism

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by DragonMMA, Apr 9, 2014.

  1. DragonMMA

    DragonMMA Boards don't hit back.

    So, I wrote this little essay about cultural relativism and objective vs. subjective ethics for another forum a while back. The forum was a political forum so what is written here is an abridged version where I've taken out all my rants about wage slavery under capitlism and related issues - as it would be out of place on this forum (thus it might be roughly edited in places where I've taken parts out).

    Before I begin, let me make clear a common misconception. Cultural Relativism is not the same as respect for cultural differences (though this respect is certainly included with the CR theory). To reject cultural relativism does not mean that you reject a culture’s traditions, customs, music, language, and worldviews simply because they are different; that would be closed-minded and arrogant and not based in reason. Cultural relativism as an ethical theory only becomes relevant if you consider human “ethics” just as relative as non-ethical cultural traits. Chinese table manners and Mexican Quinceañeras are not ethical concerns, so they don’t count when we’re talking about refuting relativism in favor of objectivism. Most would agree (and rightfully so) that Cultural differences and diversity are all good things and generally increase the color in our lives. Diversity is exotic and enriching. This is because it belongs to the realm of subjective desires, aesthetics, and other aspects of life that have no profound moral effects that affect how we conduct ourselves with other people and influence their lives. Just as individuals have subjective desires and tastes, so too do groups of individuals who grow up together. There is nothing wrong with that until we get into an area where subjectivity breaks down – human ethics. Not Chinese ethics, not Western ethics, not Aztec ethics – human ethics: the study of values relating to human conduct with respect to the rightness or wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness or badness of the motives and ends of such actions. So, cultural relativism (CR) is an ethical theory that makes six basic claims, all of them independent of one another; that is to say some might be true while others aren’t, or all may be true or false in tandem:


    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.
    4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people for 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.


    Response to #s 1 and 3:


    These are merely descriptive claims, not normative or prescriptive claims. “A woman does not show her face in Saudi Arabia” is a descriptive statement; it describes what is. “A woman should not show her face in Saudi Arabia” on the other hand, is a prescriptive “ought” statement; it describes what ought to be. It is a fact that different cultures often have different moral codes, and no one is arguing against such an accurate description. When one begins to mix the descriptive with the prescriptive however, we get something called an invalid logical argument, that is, where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises - as shown in the syllogism below:


    Premise: Saudis believe it is right to make grown women cover their faces in public. Most Americans do not believe that is morally acceptable.


    Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally right for the Saudis to make women cover their faces, but not morally right for Americans to do so.


    As you can see, the descriptive premise (what is) does not lend support to the prescriptive conclusion (what should be). The conclusion is invalid. It’s no different than the mock argument below:


    Premise: Dogs bite when they are mad.


    Conclusion: Therefore, it is good that dogs bite people.


    Response to #4:


    If #4 is true, it would mean that there are no universal ethical truths that hold for all peoples for all time, and that matters of right and wrong are relative to the culture in which we live. But if that is true, then isn’t the very idea: “there are no universal truths in ethics, therefore all our concepts of right and wrong are relative” itself a universal, non-relative ethical truth claim? Cultural relativists are saying that it is ethically true that there are no ethical truths. That’s a direct logical contradiction. Cultural relativism can’t possibly claim to be true in any objective sense since, according to its beliefs, there is no objective truth! Why do cultural relativists even bother promoting their idea since by their own criteria it’s just as valid as its theoretical opponent? We should try to avoid contradiction and inconsistency in our search for an ethical framework.

    So, that proves that CR is invalid as well as contradictory, so now I’ll prove it’s inconsistent by examining the three consequences if in fact CR were true (assuming the logical contradiction above didn’t exist):


    1. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of other societies.
    2. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of our own society (since CR claims that whatever a society thinks is right, is in fact right by default for that society).
    3. If cultural relativism were true, it would make moral progress impossible.


    Consequence #1 is derived from the second, third, and sixth claims. If we cannot criticize the customs of other societies, we would have to sit idly by as people outside our society are tortured and murdered and raped. Legitimate harm would be befalling people (human beings just like us) and we would have to turn the other way. We would have to accept that physical and psychological harm to unwilling parties in this other society is in fact a good thing simply on the basis that it’s another culture.


    Our inaction would then actually qualify as action in support of that harm (MLK brilliantly proves why inaction in the face of injustice = action in promotion of that injustice). The Nazi genocide of the Jews for instance would’ve had to have continued without outside intervention from the Allies lest this intervening party act immorally by saving the lives of innocent men, women, and children being executed and tortured on a daily basis. Genocide might be immoral to us, but it wasn’t immoral under Nazi Germany (according to CR), and our intervention would be violating Nazi Germany’s moral value structure, which would be immoral on our part. You can start to see how morally bankrupt CR is.


    Consequence #2 is derived from the fifth claim of CR. We would not be morally permitted to question the ethics of our own culture, since our culture is what defines what is moral for us in the first place! But what if you truly disagree with the rules of your culture? Cultural relativism’s test for determining what is right or wrong is that you ask whether the action in question is in accordance with the customs of your culture at this point in its history - if so, then you’d be immoral to question it. If this theory were true, it would mean that CR is seriously oppressive since it does not need to offer any rational justification for imposing a particular cultural value on people. It’s the destruction of reason in favor of illegitimate, chaotic, baseless, social authority.


    Consequence #3: Since cultural relativism makes it impossible to justifiably disagree with any practices that are in effect, the idea of moral progress is out of the question. To progress is to move forward, and to move forward is to change. And how can a society’s value structure be changed if that structure cannot be judged as deficient?


    Luckily, not all of us are cultural relativists. Those who rejected cultural relativism have helped society evolve in ways that constitute not just differences, but improvements (universally in support of our species’ survival and enhancement of that survival across the board). Improvements explained as progressive recognition of objectively superior values. If our conceptions of right and wrong were based solely on our culture’s practices, it would be pretty hard to account for the ethical advances of our current civilization. Slavery has been virtually abolished worldwide. Worldwide rules of war have been adopted so that death doesn’t have to be so painful. Human sacrifice is no longer practiced as a religious ritual. Racial segregation is no longer a norm. Women should not be treated as property. All of which, most would agree, are objectively “good” things. None of this can happen under cultural relativism. None of this can happen without people who are brave enough to question the status quo. Social reformers claim that they are judging their culture against a standard of an ideal society that transcends culture because it is based on logic, reason, empiricism, and properly derived justice instead of blind authority and chaos in the name of respecting difference. As autonomous individuals, we should work for an objective framework for ethics, an ethics that works for all humans for all time and debate about it with each other in an attempt to make a better, more ethical world in an objective sense - and I think I've shown why it’s the only “true” kind of ethics there can be.


    So to conclude, CR is illogical, it is contradictory, it is inconsistent, and it fails to offer an explanation for worldwide social progress. But again, non-moral cultural traits and differences are not subject to objectivity because human beings are naturally social animals with a diverse range of aesthetic tastes. These things appeal to our relative desires and their existence are no threat to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics on the other hand is different as it applies universally to everyone because it deals directly with threats to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics concerns life and death, good and evil, rights and freedom – for all constituents of our species universally. These things, as shown above, just cannot (and should not) be relative.


    And please keep in mind that objective ethics = /= universal (as in cosmic) ethics like with theism. From where I'm arguing, there are no laws of physics that provide a moral framework, there are no cosmic moral authorities. But considering our nature as a species, we can determine through logic and science what is objectively in our best interest as individuals and as societies. This is what most philosophers refer to when they talk about objective ethics.
     
  2. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    Jaffa cakes are better than Oreos.
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    That's just a fact though with no counter point
     
  4. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Now, I'm not a cultural relativist but I think your argumentation here is lacking. Let's start by going through your objections to CR which, if I have read you right, you form as "consequences of CR".

    Consequence #1 simply states a potential outcome of CR, it does not motivate us to reject it. Sure CR may lead to genocide.... but how is that a problem for the CR approach?

    Consequence #2 argues that CR doesn't allow itself to be subjected to reason.... well the people who support CR don't think ethics can be subjected to reason in the first place so that's a bit of a moot point.

    Consequence #3 argues that CR doesn't allow for moral progress. For the CR advocate this is not a problem because CR doesn't take "moral progress" to be a properly meaningful term.

    Overall you haven't really refuted CR, rather you've provided an account for why a progressively inclined mindset should reject CR, but you haven't provided any argument for why someone who is of a CR mindset should adopt a more progressive approach.

    I think your argument would benefit if you specified what kind of CR you are refuting... is it the cultural conservatism of people like Roger Scruton (liberal rationalism should not have priority over cultural institutions and values as that would lead to the breakdown of society or worse) or are you arguing against a more philosophical type of existential nihilism in which morality is just a completely defunct category to begin with?

    ----------
    Personally I find attacking CR positions to be a lot easier once you can specify why one might adopt CR and showing how that kind of reasoning is either psychology impossible (how can one dismiss universal prescriptivism claim while arguing prescriptively that we should all recognize this fact?) or too ontologically cumbersome to be of any use (a culture is not a homogeneous entity so specifying what attitudes are the "true" attitudes of an entire "culture" is a lost cause).

    More to the point I think you should be careful about trying to just attack CR by showing how its consequences may be considered ethically sub-optimal as the CR mindset doesn't care about whether or not its outcomes are what one group of people, namely progressives, take to be "optimal". A lot of your arguments would be shrugged of by a CR advocate who would simply reply... "So what?". You need to show how that mindset is nonsensical or impractical to begin with, you can't refute it just by presuming a progressive outlook.


    Hope my input has given you something to think on!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
  5. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I don't understand how you're separating morality and ethics from the aesthetics so cleanly. Both ethics and aesthetics seem to be statements about how the world should be. In my view they are articulations of preference rather than any sort of statement about reality.

    I'd state it more as 'There is no difference between a statement of ethics and a statement of preference.' Just because you analyze ethical claims does not mean that you are making one yourself.

    The effects of a proposition have no bearing on whether or not it is true.

    Not really. Just because you've acknowledged that something is subjective doesn't mean that you can't act on it. For example I really prefer that people don't punch me in the face and I will really try to stop them on it. I recognize that, objectively speaking, it doesn't really matter to the universe if I'm being punched in the face or not.

    [​IMG]

    Why does it matter if our species survives? I mean, I prefer it too, but objectively speaking the universe is not very different with or without our particular variety of hominid.

    You've depicted society as advancing ethically, but how would we explain moral backslide, such as the reinstitution of torture, under your lens? If we just say that different societies behave differently, well, that makes sense of both 'progress' and 'backslide.'

    Most in this culture. News at 11: Current generation thinks current generation is the coolest generation.

    Just because you've claimed that preference for paintings is subjective doesn't mean that you can not pick the painting you like best to hang on your wall.

    You still haven't really said what that objective sense is...

    Seems like special pleading to me.

    I don't think that there's anything substantially different from a group of humans behaving in a cohesive way and a group of lions doing the same. Would you say there's an objective standard of behavior for a lion to aspire to?
     
  6. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Philosoraptor, I think you might be confusing moral anti-realism with cultural relativism at certain points. The question "what does it matter if humanity survives?" is often asked by nihilists but not really as cultural relativists as cultural relativists, loosely, take the survival of humanity to be important but argure that that claim has a certain kind of truth value different from other philosophical notions of "truth".

    Incidentally if you are a one of the two we should host a debate where I try and coax you towards the warm loving glow of Utilitarianism! :D
     
  7. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Haha, it's been a while since I've read philosophy, I may be mixing and matching my terms. I'm willing to be coaxed towards utilitarianism as long as it works out for me.

    PS Read your post and I think it nailed my objections much more succinctly.
     
  8. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    :eek::love:

    Yeah, "cultural relativism"* is one of those terms like "liberal" or "rationalist" that separate from its of popular use has a quite specific meaning that is not well known outside of specialists in philosophy and political/cultural theory so it's easy to make mistakes once those terms start flying!

    I think you articulate the nihilist position quite well though.


    Also I'm sure you'd do fine in a utilitarian world... that is until we prematurely euthanize you and harvest your organs to save other people. Maximizing Utility Y'all!!! :woo:

    *Oddly enough in Political and Social Philosophy culturally relativistic accounts of politics and society are more famously held by conservative philosophers than they are by liberal philosophers. Basically cultural conservatives want to retain some element of CR so they can argue for preserving "tradition" over technocratic progress.

    Which is totally at odds with the way cultural relativism is often accounted for in the mainstream media.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
  9. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    It's been a good few years since I've read this stuff too.

    While there may be some innate human behaviour that could be deemed ethical, has there ever been a cogent argument for any objective moral truth?
     
  10. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Plenty, but it depends on where you set the goal-posts. What qualifies as objective, what counts as morality etc
     
  11. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I've only ever seen it from the philosophy of religion side, which is a travesty of a joke of philosophy.
     
  12. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    What's your problem with philosophy of religion?


    But otherwise most ethical traditions whether they are moral rights theories, consequentialist or virtue ethics theories will contain in them arguments for why they should be considered objectively true in opposition to other theories or moral relativism as a whole. For instance my arguments for objectivity in ethics stem from my Weak Informed Preference Utilitarianism and likewise someone who advocates for a moral rights approach may have a totally different view for why we might want to claim objectivity in ethics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    My experience of it is a constant recycling of Aquinas' logical fallacies.
     
  14. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Acquinas it where it starts a lot of the time but the arguments have moved on. For instance his cosmological argument has largely been replaced by its Leibnizian variant and the same goes for the ontological argument with other more contemporary philosophers (though very few people support it) and the design argument (which is markedly different from "Creationism" which almost no one supports outside of professors who live and work in the privately funded "Christian Colleges" of America) is considerably more subtle than it is made out (though I still think all of them fail, but for different reasons).

    Plus there are a lot of other areas which it branches off into but I'm not as familiar with those.

    I think it's quite sad that outside of academia it's been hijacked and distorted by so many interest groups. Personally I don't think we'd have nearly so many radical religious folk today if those people were better educated on the philosophy of religion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2014
  15. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Yeah, I lump Leibniz in with the fallacious logic crowd, when it comes to his god stuff.

    For me though, I feel that the only valid philosophy is boring logic and empiricism stuff like Hume, philosophy of science, or nakedly subjective political and economic philosophy.

    Reason cannot bring us truth.
     
  16. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Why, what do you consider to be fallacious about his argument?


    How can reason not bring you truth? I don't see how you get to truth, without using reason.
     
  17. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    There will always be people or a group of them, who will do what they want, rather than what others think they should. Therefore there will always be ethical/ moral/ cultural relativism or its potential.

    Any other option is absurd.
     
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Honestly, it's been to long since I read any to properly respond, but his "best of all possible worlds" stuff, his fudges at reconciling free will and determinism, explaining away "evil"... it's nonsense to me.

    The very concept of "truth" is a bit transcendental for me, but essentially we may infer truth through the scientific method, to a degree. But the idea that some bald apes can think their way to universal truths is frankly ridiculous.

    The only universal truth we can ultimately uncover is that we cannot observe, nor create instruments to observe, that will give us a truly objective measurement of the universe.
     
  19. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Perhaps because truth is relative?

    By the way, the human race is not going to survive, at least not in any form we would currently call human. We are simply one point on an evolutionary path, who knows if it is a dead end or not but the result won't humans as we know them.
     
  20. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Ah I was meaning more about his cosmological argument.

    How do you even begin with conceiving/justifying the scientific method or extrapolating any of its results without reason?

    Logic seems to do fine without needing to be measured...
     

Share This Page