Published on Philosophy (https://philosophy.tamucc.

edu)
Home > Printer-friendly PDF > Printer-friendly PDF

Foundations of Professional Ethics

Submitted by Stefan Sencerz on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 20:10
Course Home [1]

Tuesday, 01-18-11: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Assignments:
Rachels, Chapter 2
Synopsis:
BASIC IDEAS
Cultural Ethical Relativism (CER)
Sometimes we say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," implying that this sort of acting is
morally correct. We can call views of this sort Cultural Ethical Relativism (CER). According to
views of this sort:
Moral appraisals are essentially dependent upon the standards that define a particular
moral code, the practices and norms accepted by a social group at a specific place and
time. (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, p. 758)
CER implies, among other things, that:

A right action means an action socially approved by a given culture or society.

"A good person" means "a person who has character traits (or virtues) approved by a given
culture or society.
Such terms as obligatory, required, forbidden, "good" etc. can be defined in an
analogous way.
We should choose moral principles by following what our society approves of.

Ethical Universalism (Objectivism) (EU)

By contrast to ethical relativism, universalism can be characterized as follows:
Some core (or basic) ethical standards are universally valid or correct; that is, they are
applicable to all similarly situated people (in all societies, at all times).
EU does not imply that we already know what these principles are or that we know how to use
them. In fact, for all we know, we may still have to discover what the correct ethical principles are.
Furthermore, EU allows that we are fallible and can make moral errors.
Ethical Absolutism (EA)
According to Ethical Absolutism, moral rules are extremely simple; they admit to no
exceptions.
A view of this sort was proposed, e.g., by Immanuel Kant. He argued that we must never kill,
steal, or lie, no exceptions. In chapter 1, when he discusses how strong is the rule prohibiting
killing, Rachels discusses various eceptions to this rule. That is, he argues that this rule is very
strong but not absolute.
Usually, absolutists are universalists/objectivists. In particular, Kant was an absolutist and also he
thought that the standards he proposed are universally valid. However, someone may believe
that there are universal moral standards (so objectivism is true) but not that these standards are
simple or absolute (so, absolutism is false). For example, utilitarians (and other
consequentialists) think that we always should try to bring the best balance of (or difference
between) benefits and harms. But they do not believe that we must always follow some simple
rules, no exceptions.
Some relations between CER, EU, and EA
CER and EU are incompatible.
EU does not imply EA. One can be a universalist while allowing that ethical rules admit to
exceptions provided that the exceptions apply universally.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM (A CLOSER LOOK):

Sometimes philosophers use five different claims to analyze CER. For example, Rachels does it
using the following five theses (p. 16):
The Diversity Thesis: Different societies have different moral codes. (As a matter of fact,
moral beliefs vary from one culture to another culture or even within the same culture over
time.)
The Relativity Thesis: The moral code of a society determines what is right within that
society.

Thesis about the Rejection of Universalism (Objectivism): There is no objective [or

universal] standard that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's.
The Thesis about Cultural Egalitarianism: The moral code of our own society has no
special status; it is but one among many.
The Thesis about Tolerance: It is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other
people. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance (acceptance (?), non?coercion (?)) toward
the practices of other people.
Some Reasons Allegedly Supporting CER
A) It is simply good and desirable that we have a variety of cultures
Response: Such a variety may be good and desirable. But this implies nothing about ethical
issues. In particular, various cultures can adopt different standards of beauty, various rules
of etiquette, different laws, and even different religious and spiritual commitments. It does
not follow that they also must differ about ethical issues.
For example, from the fact that someone (or some culture) values jazz and some other
culture values rock nothing follows about what they should do with regard to the issue of
euthanasia, or justice, or environmental ethics.
B) It was wrong for a white European culture to impose its value on other cultures; we must learn
to respect or at least tolerate other cultures. CER and the attitude of tolerance go hand in hand.
Response: This is simply false. If CER is true, then you should act in accordance with the
norms of your culture. If your culture is intolerant, then CER requires not to be tolerant.
Also, see below.
C) Morality is a product of culture and nothing which is such a product can be objective or
universal.
Response: physics, astronomy, history, and science in general are also products of culture.
Yet they are objective (or universally correct).
D) Cultures and societies disagree widely about morality.
Response: Many of those disagreements are the results of confusion between various
norms. For example, sometimes people confuse religion and morality, or laws and morality.
Furthermore, sometimes what seems to be a disagreement about values is really a
disagreement about concepts or facts. That is, what seems to be a difference of opinions
about values is not fundamentally such a difference. Once facts and concept are clarified,
sometimes people change their mind and apparent differences disappear.
For example, consider the debate about decreminalization and/or legalization of
recreational and other drugs. Sometimes people worry that this would lead to the

dramatically increase of drug use causing enormous harms to the entire society. But
consider what has happened in Portugal that, in 2001, decriminalized all drugs:
They resolved to... transfer all the money they used to spend on arresting and jailing
drug addicts, and spend it instead on reconnecting them -- to their own feelings, and
to the wider society. The most crucial step is to get them secure housing, and
subsidized jobs so they have a purpose in life, and something to get out of bed for. I
watched as they are helped, in warm and welcoming clinics, to learn how to reconnect
with their feelings, after years of trauma and stunning them into silence with drugs.
One example I learned about was a group of addicts who were given a loan to set up
a removals firm. Suddenly, they were a group, all bonded to each other, and to the
society, and responsible for each other's care.
The results of all this are now in. An independent study by the British Journal of
Criminology found that since total decriminalization, addiction has fallen, and injecting
drug use is down by 50 percent. I'll repeat that: injecting drug use is down by 50
percent. Decriminalization has been such a manifest success that very few people in
Portugal want to go back to the old system. (The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been
Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think [2])
In particular:
The main campaigner against the decriminalization back in 2000 was Joao Figueira,
the country's top drug cop. He offered all the dire warnings that we would expect from
the Daily Mail or Fox News. But when we sat together in Lisbon, he told me that
everything he predicted had not come to pass -- and he now hopes the whole world
will follow Portugal's example. (more on this topic here [2]; see also this essay
published by the "Spiegel International [3]" and this report prepared by the Cato
Institute [4])
Another example may be provided by the retired Justice of the US Supreme Court, John
Paul Stevens, who changed his mind about Capital Punishment. On this topic, see his
essay On the Death Sentence (link [5])
Finally, we could argue that (even if there are some differences in ethical views) there are
some universal moral standards that all cultures endorse. We just do not know yet how to
use them properly. Rachels develops this sort of argument on pp. 25ff. (See this outline,
below.)
E) There are no clear ways to resolve moral differences and disagreements. No amount of
argument may convince one to change his/her moral views.
Response: Many philosophers think that there are such methods and that, if we try harder,
we can resolve cultural differences, especially differences about some most basic and
central issues.
In particular, Rachels observes what follows: Our feelings and intuitions about moral

matters are important. So, we can treat them as provisional starting point. But there is more
to morality than but emotions and intuitions. We have to notice that people and cultures
often have different feelings about the same issue. So, we cannot complitely rely on our
feelings and intuitions. We have to consider also which of these feelings and moral
intuitions are biased and irrational and which are justified.
Rationally defensible judgments are these which are guided by the correct understanding of
concepts and facts as well as by the ethical theories like these we started to discuss when
we analyzed chapter 1. Once we clarify facts and concepts, and once we expose our
feelings to the best ethical theories and the idea of impartiality, it turns out that many ethical
disagreements are resolved. That is, some rational consensus begins to emerge.
Some Reasons Against (CER)
A) It is hard to define a culture. Without such definition, we do not know what CER implies.
B) Sometimes an action takes place within more than one society. In such a case, would an act
be right or wrong or neither or what?
C) If CR is true, then moral decisions are either too easy or too difficult.
D) If CR is true, then moral progress or reform is impossible. Also, we cannot learn from other
cultures.
Are there any universal Values?
Rachels argues that some values are universal. This is the case because (among other things) a
culture could not survive without accepting those values.
Imagine, for example, that we accept the following norms:
It is all right to kill people just for fun;
It is permissible to steal because you feel like stealing;
It is permissible to lie at will.
If we adopted such norms, our culture would not survive very long. So, for a culture to survive
and flourish, it must reject the above norms and accept that (with few narwely defined
exceptions):
Human life has a great value and, thus, it is wrong to kill a person;
Stealing is wrong; and
Lying and deceptiona are impermissible.
In general, Rachels wants us to ask whether or not the practice promotes or hinders the welfare
and interests of the people affected by it. Cultures that tend to flourish must accept only those
practices that are generally beneficial to people within those cultures. So, according to Rachels
the norm that we ought to act in generally beneficial and non-harmful ways is universal.
A Note about Tolerance
Tolerance is an attitude that we sometimes take with regard to other people and/or cultures with

whom we disagree.
Tolerance involves (at least) the following three elements:
a) we assume that the others (their actions) are wrong;
b) we could force (or at least try to force) a change by using various coercive measures
(e.g., economical sanctions, intimidation, prison terms, military force, etc.);
c) we do not constrain their behavior; in particular, we assume that we do not have a (moral
and/or legal) right to force them to change their ways.
If this account of tolerance is correct, then universalism is compatible with tolerance, and
relativism is not. Here is why: CER assumes that "anything goes", "every culture is right,", and so
on. So, according to relativism, there is nothing to tolerate (for no culture is ever wrong).
On the flip side, tolerance presupposes some universal standards. Those who are tolerant must
assume that the views of others are sometimes wrong (otherwise there is nothing to tolerate).
Why should we be tolerant? One possible answer is that, in moany cicumastances, tolerance is
is useful and beneficial. In many cases tolerance may be the best practical approach to some
moral differences. Tolerance allows us to deliberate issues with each other. Sometimes
deliberation leads one (or both parties) to changing their views. In effect, it may lead to moral
progress and convergence. Lack of tolerance seems more conducive to cultural clashes and
violence.
Furthermore, CER does not imply that we should be nonagressive (non-militant) and peaceful in
our interactions with other cultures. It requires rather that we should act in accordance with the
standards of our culture. So, if we are members of a militant culture that requiers that we ought to
interfere with other cultures, even in a very agressive ways, then according to CER we should
interfere with other cultures.

LOGIC ETHICS HISTORY METAPHYSICS EPISTEMOLOGY MIND VALUE

LANGUAGE
Source URL: https://philosophy.tamucc.edu/prof_ethics_lecture2
Links:
[1] https://philosophy.tamucc.edu/../courses/fall-2011/professional-ethics
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html
[3] http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a891060.html
[4] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fairsuccessful-drug-policies
[5] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/death-sentence/