Do you think cultural relativism is a convincing moral theory?

Cultural Relativism states that what is right for any given culture, must
therefore be right for that culture, and no one culture has the right to
observe and judge another culture on the grounds of tolerance. However
cultural relativism is not a convincing moral theory for arriving at sound
moral ethics, and in fact cultural relativism claims there are no objective
moral truths, because of this I believe cultural relativism is a flawed
moral theory. Firstly I will show that relativism is flawed in its reasoning
and construction and I will show that the method of majority rules used
for arriving at ethical standpoints is critically unsound. Secondly,
relativisms pluralistic view of ethics means that its supporters find
themselves with no room for improvement or ground for moral
adjustment because of the principle of toleration. Finally, scrutiny of this
principle of tolerance will show that on the surface this principle is well
meaning and useful to the cultural relativist, however it is in fact a
universal principle, which is a contradiction to the idea of pluralism. All
these arguments will attempt to show that cultural relativism is flawed in
its construction and method of arriving at sound ethical principles.

Cultural relativism is purely constructed on the simple premise that what

is right for a given culture is right for that culture, the culture of any
given society is defined by its beliefs, social norms, conventions and
ideologies. These factors come together to form that cultures moral

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

principles (Gensler 1998, p11). As Gensler (1998, p11) points out, if a

particular society believes that infanticide is wrong, it is only because
that society deems it to be wrong. The only thing that determines it as
morally wrong is the cultures belief in it being wrong. Conversely if the
society you are a part of believes in infanticide then that is determined as
true for that society also. This simple example shows that there are no
objective moral truths in cultural relativism, and I believe this is major
shortcoming; for example, we all have some innate sense that killing is
wrong, but cultural relativism would allow it, as long as the majority of
society accepts it. As Mosteller (2008, p46) puts it, in cultural relativism
there is no right or wrong regarding a set cultural belief. Cultural
relativism is unable to produce any standards of an ethical nature, only
truths relative to the culture that holds them (Shaw 1989, p82). How is it
that these culturally relative truths are reached? Simply by following the
rule of majority rules. The problem with this is, if the majority of
society believes in something and defines it as morally acceptable then
this is determined as acceptable (Gensler 1998,p12). I believe this
creates minority groups within a culture, and I find this to be a major
flaw. Cultural relativism is incapable of resolving the views of
overlapping cultures within a given society, this means there will always
be individuals and groups that are opposed to the majority and therefore
find themselves isolated within their own culture, and subject to
incompatible moral standards (Shaw 1989, p84). Those who stand up to
the majority are merely trying to get others to be immoral, because once

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

a majority deems something to be right it must be right, and only the

majority is capable of determining what is right (Shaw 1986, p83). This
idea of majority rules is also difficult to determine, what proportion of a
society is needed to determine that they are the majority? Is it 51%? Or
should it be higher? (Shaw 1986, p83). Following on from this, what
happens if it is set too low and the beliefs of a society change from one
year to the next, as Shaw (1986, p83) points out this will mean that a
society will be subject to moral flip-flops. Without a significant
majority the cultural relativist is left without any definitive answers, I
believe that this is an unreliable form of reasoning and method of
formulating stable ethics, based upon the views of society as a whole.

Cultural relativism is pluralistic in nature, and cultural relativists

highlight the diversity of values and beliefs across societies as the
underpinning of cultural relativism, this is made possible through the
principle of toleration. Cultural relativism holds no set standards in
regards to the formation of ethics, each society is capable of determining
its own values and ethics based upon the unique beliefs of that society
(Shaw 1989, pg82). Cultural relativists believe that what a society holds
as true must be free from judgement by those outside of that society, and
therefore each society is to be respected regarding its ethical choices.
This is the principle of toleration. However, this principle of toleration
leaves cultural relativism incapable of reform and adjustment of its
ethics. Shaw (1989, p83) suggests that cultural relativists are not free to

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

critique the ethics of other societies provided that they conform to their
own ethics; to condemn them is to force outside principles upon their
culture. Yet as Gensler (1998, p14) points out the boundaries of modern
society are no longer clearly defined and we are more connected via
technology, he also states that disagreements come about because of
overlapping cultures both within societies and between nation states. By
following the rule of tolerance within cultural relativism, nations,
cultures and sub-cultures are left with no means to address conflicts or
adjust ethical views because according to cultural relativists everybody
is right and this pluralistic viewpoint is what must be tolerated. Gensler
(1998, p15) also states that if no side is capable of determining that their
viewpoint is wrong, then we are reducing our ability to discover new
truths. Put simply, I believe if society A is right and society B is also
right and neither can be judgemental of the other, and therefore must be
tolerated, then there is no room for improvement or moral adjustment,
both society A and B are then unable to find common ground or learn
from each other. This inflexibility is due to cultural relativisms
adherence to its key principle of toleration.

Although the principle of toleration can be seen as a theoretically

admirable aspect of cultural relativism, it is in fact a contradiction to the
idea of pluralism. Pluralism is a theory or system that recognizes more
than one ultimate principle, this is the foundation on which cultural
relativism is built. Each society has its own set of beliefs and ethics

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

specific to that society. Yet the cultural relativist would have us believe,
in order to make this pluralistic view viable we must apply the principle
of toleration. However toleration is a universal principle and is at odds
with cultural relativisms adherence to pluralism. Gensler (1998, p13)
points out, what if a given society believes that intolerance is socially
acceptable even if it runs against cultural relativisms view on tolerance,
cultural relativists would have to say that they are right, for what the
majority of a society believes, must be true. Yet for cultural relativism to
function it must include the universal principle of toleration or otherwise
it breaks down. This is a self-defeating argument. Williams (1972, p2425) points out that all societies have norms and standards that define
them, yet it is very difficult to be an outsider within a society and show
complete tolerance towards it. Many societies have been altered for
good and bad reasons by other societies. The morality of something has
little to do with the idea that it should be tolerated or even left
unchanged. As Williams (1972, p25) puts it it cannot be a consequence
of the nature of morality itself that no society ought ever to interfere
with another. For cultural relativists toleration is key to allowing each
society to have its own beliefs and ethics, however it is clear that
pluralism and the universal principle of toleration are contradictory, and
in fact toleration brings about a collapse of cultural relativism as a
convincing moral theory. Furthermore I believe being tolerant of
something does not make it necessarily right or wrong ethically, for

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

example I may tolerate the fact that people kill animals for consumption,
yet believe that it is morally wrong to kill another living being.

In conclusion, cultural relativism may seem appealing to those wishing

to find an easy alternative to the hard task of formulating morals based
upon solid reasoning. At first glance it seems easy to support cultural
relativism as a sound theory for ethics. However, I believe cultural
relativism is not a convincing moral theory. The first problem is that
there are no objective moral truths that can be universalized. Secondly
there will always be people, groups and sub cultures that will be isolated
because they do not believe what the majority believes, also it is difficult
to determine when the majority is large enough to reach a consensus,
and if this majority is marginal and changes from year to year, then this
too causes ambiguity and uncertainty. Similarly the principle of
toleration that cultural relativism adheres to does not allow any room for
moral adjustment, I see this ability to reform and adjust as important,
especially in modern day society where boundaries between societies are
continuing to further overlap. Finally the principle of toleration is a
universal principle, and is contradictory to the idea of pluralism. All of
these factors weaken the validity of cultural relativism as a sound and
convincing moral theory for the formulation of modern day ethics.

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.

REFERENCES
Gensler, H 1998, Cultural Relativism Ethics: A Contemporary
Introduction, Routledge, London, pp. 11-19, accessed 15/03/2012,
University of Wollongong Library e-readings.
Mosteller, T 2008, Ethical relativism, in Relativism: A Guide for
the Perplexed, Continuum, New York, pp. 43-57, accessed
15/03/2012, University of Wollongong Library e-readings.
Shaw, W H 1986, Relativism and objectivity in ethics, in J.
Arthur (ed.), Morality and Moral Controversies, 2nd edn, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 16-22.
Williams, B 1972, Interlude: relativism, in Morality, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 20-25.

Word count: 1580

Michael A Smith.
Student No, 4046778.