Rachels Philosophy Overview

Rachels: Cultural Relativism [A] What is cultural relativism? Greeks vs. Callatians example “Eskimo” example Rachels says that cultural relativism involves several different claims: 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. 3. There is no objective standard (“universal truth”) that can be used to judge one society’s codes as better than another. 4. The moral code of our own society is no better than any other society’s. 5. It is “mere arrogance” for us to judge the morality of another culture. We must be tolerant of the differences in their moral codes. These five claims seem to go together, but they are independent and need not all be true. For example, Rachels points out that #2 says that right and wrong are determined by an individual society and #5 says we should be tolerant. But this is a problem if there is a society that is intolerant; if we are true to point #2, then we can’t criticize societies for being intolerant. “Cultural relativists argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality.” (p. 405). P1 Different cultures have different moral codes. C Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. But the conclusion here does not follow from the premise. The premise concerns what people believe and the conclusion concerns what is really the case. But we know that people believe false things. Imagine a society that believes that the world is flat, and another that believes that the world is (more-or-less) round. It does not follow from their different beliefs that there is no objective truth about the shape of the world. So, to establish cultural relativism, we need a better argument. That is, cultural relativism may be true, but we haven’t proven it to be true. [B] Consequences of taking cultural relativism seriously 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. 2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society.

3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Many people think that these consequences do not actually reflect the way that we think about morality, so since they are implied by cultural relativism, we should rethink whether we actually believe in cultural relativism. And remember that until this point, we only have a bad argument in favor of it. So, why might we reject cultural relativism? [C] Beyond cultural relativism If we look closely at different practices, we can sometimes see that the same values underlie very different actions. Greeks vs. Callatians example “Eskimo” example The customs of a society are a product not just of the society’s values, but also of the religious and factual beliefs of its members, and the circumstances under which they must live. So, a difference between cultures is not necessarily a difference in values. In fact, Rachels says that there are some moral values common to all societies, “because those rules are necessary for society to exist” (p. 410). (e.g. valuing truth telling, prohibitions on murder) “Cultures may differ in what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this disagreement exists against a broad background of agreement” (p. 410). In cases where there is a cultural practice that we regard as not simply different, but wrong, there is disagreement about whether it is okay to condemn that practice. Rachels gives an example of a young woman who sought asylum in the U.S. in order to avoid excision/genital mutilation in her own country. He suggests that those who defend this practice argue that it is good or beneficial. [Plato’s theory of the good: All wrongdoing is done in ignorance, for everyone desires only what is good.] So, in judging the practice of excision, we should ask whether it is, on the whole, helpful or harmful. “In fact, this is a standard that might reasonably be used in thinking about any social practice whatever: We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it” (p. 412). [D] What we can learn from cultural relativism Rachels says that even though we should reject cultural relativism (because it is based on an unsound argument, because it leads to implausible consequences and because it overstates the amount of real disagreement about values between cultures) there are a couple of things that we can learn from it: 1. We should not assume that all of our practices are based on an absolute rational standard. 2. We should keep an open mind and be prepared to question our own standards, even ones we hold very strongly.

Study Questions 1. What is the argument that Rachels outlines in favor of cultural relativism? 2. What does he say is wrong with that argument? Explain his point using the “flat earth” example. 3. What three consequences does Rachels say follow if we take cultural relativism seriously? 4. Explain why Rachels says that the same values sometimes underlie very different cultural practices. 5. What standard does Rachels say we can use to assess any particular social practice? 6. What two things does Rachels say we can learn from cultural relativism?