This is a standard that might reasonably be used in thinking about any social practice whatever: It is not held subject to verification by experience. The ideals of the society are the standard by which we judge his or her proposals as worthwhile. For instance, if we took cultural relativism seriously, we could not criticize Nazi Germany or the Antebellum South for their moral atrocities.
It is still an open question whether the conclusion is true or false. Mostly philosophical ethics argues for qualified positions rather than absolute ones. There is no doubt that cultures exhibit differences --often radical differences-- in their ethical stances on food, sex, punishment, political expression, human rights, and matters of life and death.
It is not clear exactly what is required of us in being tolerant, but presumably it would require that we not interfere in other cultures for the purposes of imposing our own moral standards on them. Then Rachels goes on to say that if we were to hold CR Rachels def.
I am going to argue that theism has an adequate justification for affirming the intrinsic value of human beings, whereas atheism does not. The trick here is not to get caught up in what others SAY is good or bad, right or wrong. James Rachels Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This, of course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural Relativism.
If our society says apartheid is right, then it is right whether we agree with it or not. Secondly, if it were part of our moral code, then it would actually prohibit us from criticizing other intolerant cultures. The idea of universal truth in ethics, they say, is a myth.
However, if all these unacceptable consequences follow from holding the CR Rachels def. I feel that Rachels merges my sense of cultural and ethical relativism under one term.
Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried. I do not mean to suggest that all cultures really do have the same moral code or that the apparent differences in moral codes are an illusion.
It is possible for there to be a society with a moral code that promotes genocide. There is a lesson here: Be sure to leave any thoughts or questions you have in the comments section below!
Second, MCR tells us nothing about what justifies a moral standard in a society. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively fight nor objectively wrong.
Arguably, all cultures must have certain values in common. Infant girls are more readily disposed of because, first, in this society the males are the primary food providers—they are the hunters, according to the traditional division of labor—and it is obviously important to maintain a sufficient number of food providers.
Consider again the Eskimos, who often kill perfectly normal infants, especially girls. Other family members help whenever they can. Ethics, Faith, and Reason. But surely it does not follow from this that there is no objective truth in geography; different societies have different views about the shape of the earth, but that does not imply that neither view is right.
The prohibition of murder, then, is a necessary feature of all societies.The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. JAMES RACHELS. Adapted from The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels, Chapter 2, Europeans and their cultural descendents in America have a shabby history of destroying native cultures in the name of Christianity and Enlightenment, not to mention self-interest.
Recoiling from this record. James Rachels' The Elements of Moral Phuilosophy, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, ) This handout attempts to clarify Rachels' Chapter 2: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism Because this topic is so tricky to handle, I postponed assigning it until the class had done.
May 25, · Ramble. 15 Mar James Rachels' essay, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, is primarily a critique of cultural relativism and, in a way; the writer has put forward Rachels – The Challenge of Cultural Relativism – University of THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM by.
- Meta-Ethical Cultural Relativism The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist.
and James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism to illustrate why moral relativism should be rejected, and. Your paper is on James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.”. Here is an outline.
James Rachels, a prominent ethicist, has written against this kind of cultural relativism in his work The Elements of Moral Philosophy. a section of which is found in the compilation The Moral Life by Louis Pojman and Lewis Vaughn.Download