Moral Issue in Cultural Relativism in Different Countries

Objectivism: Objectivism is a descriptive theory, which means it attempts to describe the world. It contends that morality and moral truths exist outside of people’s opinions. An example of an objectivist claim might be that while the majority of the world's population believe eating meat is morally permissible, it is immoral regardless of its overwhelming approval.

Cultural Relativism: Cultural relativism is a normative theory, or a theory that seeks to define how people should behave. It says that moral claims are true or false based on what the culture believes. To illustrate, consider female genital mutilation, the ritual practice of removing or damaging a girl's external genitalia. In some African, Middle Eastern, and Asain cultures, female genital mutilation is considered a social and moral necessity. In American and European cultures, it is considered morally abhorrent. The cultural relativist would say that the morality of female genital mutilation depends on one's cultural membership. In other words, it is moral in western Africa, but immoral in northern America.

Tolerance as a motive: A desire to be tolerant can be an incentive to adopt a cultural relativist approach. While the empires of the past (most recently Western, European empires) felt their culture was morally superior to all the rest, many people in the present advocate for multicultural, liberal societies. The idea that a culture's practices are morally inferior to another threatens multiculturalism.

Cultural Differences Argument: The cultural differences argument claims that because different cultures have different moral codes, there must be no objective morality.

Evaluation of the CD argument: The cultural differences argument is weak. While its premise, that different cultures have different moral codes, is evident, this does not support the conclusion that therefore, there must be no objective morality. It could easily be the case that an objective moral standard exists and different cultures have different moral standards.

Rachel's Two negative implications: Rachels explains that there are two negative implications for cultural relativism. The first is that it excludes the ability to claim that one cultural practice is better than another. A cultural relativist with a European cultural background could not morally condemn forced marriages, a practice more common in South Asia.

The second is that it eliminates potential cultural improvement. Under cultural relativism, any challenge to society is immoral because culture determines morality. Socrates, Buddha, and Martin Luther King would be deemed immoral actors by a staunch cultural relativist.

Can we have tolerance with objectivism: The existence of a universal moral standard does not necessarily mean that cultural differences should be eliminated. While nobody has discovered universal moral axioms, not all cultural differences likely exist in the moral sphere. Language, cuisine, clothing, music, manners, rituals, and beliefs about the universe may differ between cultures, but perhaps these essential properties of civilization are morally neutral. If this is true, diversity in these areas is entirely permissible.