The Cultural Lens: Exploring Moral Relativism and the Possibility of Progress

 

The Cultural Lens: Exploring Moral Relativism and the Possibility of Progress

Introduction:

The question of whether morality is relative to culture has long been a topic of philosophical debate. Cultural relativism posits that moral values and judgments are grounded in the cultural context in which they arise, suggesting that what is morally right or wrong can vary from one culture to another. In this essay, we will examine the arguments put forth by James Rachels, Ruth Benedict, and Gilbert Harman to explore the notion of moral relativism and its implications for moral progress.

Body:

Cultural Relativism and Moral Diversity:

Ruth Benedict argues for cultural relativism by highlighting the vast diversity of moral practices across different societies. She suggests that each culture has its own set of customs, norms, and values that shape its moral framework. Benedict contends that understanding morality solely through the lens of one’s own culture limits our ability to appreciate the richness and complexity of other moral systems. By acknowledging the existence of multiple moral frameworks, cultural relativism provides a broader perspective on morality.

The Challenge of Moral Absolutism:

James Rachels challenges the idea of moral absolutism, which asserts that there are objective moral truths that apply universally. Rachels argues that moral absolutism fails to provide adequate justification for judging other cultures based on one’s own moral standards. He emphasizes the importance of cultural differences in shaping moral beliefs and argues that no single culture possesses an inherently superior moral system. Rachels’ critique supports the idea that morality is indeed relative to culture.

The Logical Problems with Moral Relativism:

While cultural relativism offers a valuable perspective on moral diversity, typical defenses of moral relativism face logical problems. Critics argue that if morality is entirely relative to culture, it becomes impossible to criticize or condemn practices such as slavery or genocide, even if they are widely accepted within a particular culture. However, Gilbert Harman’s “Moral Relativism Defended” provides a philosophical defense of relativism that addresses these concerns.

Harman’s Defense: Coherence and Reflective Equilibrium:

Harman argues that moral relativism can be philosophically respectable by embracing coherence and reflective equilibrium. He suggests that while different cultures may have divergent moral beliefs, they can still be internally coherent within their respective frameworks. By examining the coherence of moral beliefs within a specific culture and seeking reflective equilibrium, which involves critically reflecting on our own beliefs in light of new information, moral progress becomes possible within a relativistic framework.

Conclusion:

While the concept of moral relativism challenges the idea of universal moral truths, it offers valuable insights into the diversity of moral beliefs across cultures. The views presented by Rachels, Benedict, and Harman demonstrate that morality is indeed relative to culture, as cultural norms and values shape our understanding of right and wrong. While typical defenses of relativism may face logical problems, Harman’s approach provides a way to make moral relativism philosophically respectable by emphasizing coherence and reflective equilibrium. This framework allows for moral progress by critically evaluating and refining our own moral beliefs within our cultural context while respecting the diversity and complexity of other moral systems.