The article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” by Rachels explores the issue of ethics. According to the article, moral philosophy focuses on the issues that can steer an acceptable life. The term “cultural relativism” describes the moral codes embraced by different societal groups. Moral ethics differ significantly from one culture to another. The philosopher uses several characteristics to describe cultural relativism.
For instance, different communities have dissimilar moral codes. Cultural relativism also explains why there is no “truth” in ethics and morality. This is the case because “wrong” and “right” are matters of human opinion. Such opinions will definitely change from one region to another. Rachels also explains why there is no formula for judging people’s societal codes.
The first observation from Rachels’ article is that human beings tend to appreciate the differences existing between cultural groups. Every culture also has its unique moral codes. Many people strongly believe that this approach is critical towards understanding morality. However, James Rachels believes that moral relativism has numerous problems. That being the case, Rachels argues that many cultures tend to have unique opinions about different ethical issues. Such opinions vary from one society to another. He describes how different cultures dispose the dead.
The important thing is embracing the opinions supported by different cultures. However, the philosopher believes that human beings should use universal standards to understand whether specific actions are wrong or right. This argument examines why cultural relativism is inapplicable in the society today. This is true because moral relativism can make it impossible for a given culture to improve its moral values. According to Rachels, the idea of cultural relativism fails to follow the anticipated premises. For instance, the philosopher explains why universal morality is attainable and possible. This is true despite the fact that some ethical differences exist in various societies. Human beings should explore these shortcomings in order to deal with every immoral practice in their societies.
According to Rachels, cultural relativism fails to support the existence of universal moral standards. The philosopher rejects cultural relativism because it discourages individuals from criticizing the practices and beliefs of different societies. Rachels uses several arguments to explain why cultural relativism is unacceptable. The philosopher explains how cultural relativism fails to criticize malpractices such as discrimination and slavery.
Cultural relativism describes how individuals can determine what is bad or good by examining the ethical standards of a given society. The philosopher criticizes the concept of moral relativism because it makes moral progress impossible. Rachels believes that fundamental values cannot differ significantly from one society to another. These weaknesses of cultural relativism encourage human beings to formulate universal laws that can result in happiness.
The best argument for cultural relativism is that it has many problems. To begin with, the cultural practices of a given society are not different from those of other communities. Rachels believes that there are slight differences between cultures. This situation explains why a universal ethical practice can be critical towards governing all human beings. This approach will ensure there is moral progress in the world.
It is agreeable that cultural relativism is a powerful concept that analyzes the existence of different cultures. However, cultural relativism is incomplete because it ignores the similarities existing between societies. For instance, murder is an immoral action in every society across the globe. This discussion explains why the world should embrace Rachels’ arguments in order to produce better universal moral standards.