1. What are the claims Cultural Relativism according to James Rachels?

2. What are the strengths and weakness of Cultural Relativism?

3. Do you think that Cultural Relativism is a plausible position? Why?
 Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make
judgements using the standards of one’s own culture. It states that we cannot absolute say what is
right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. Now, “James Rachel” is
a well-known advocate of Cultural Relativism. He believes "morality differs in every society and
is a convenient term for socially approved habits." Some assert that cultural relativism prevents
the existence of an objective morality. James Rachel, however, argues that this theory is flawed
and unsound. There were disagreements on whether there existed an objective truth since some
societies had a geocentric perspective while others held a heliocentric view.
The idea of a universal truth in ethics is a myth. People hold that there are moral principles that
are applicable to everyone, regardless of culture. The tenets of "thou shalt not kill" and "thou
shalt not steal" would be examples of these universal moral guidelines. In other words, it matters
more in those societies how judgment and appraisal are made. Even within the same society,
people disagree about what's right and wrong.
The moral codes of the societies define what is proper and wrong for additional members of the
society or other people in the society trying to take part in it. Yet what is right and wrong is
determined by the nature of your societies. We cannot compare one culture to another. Every
culture is significant to its members; thus, societies cannot disparage other cultures or contrast
their traditions with those of other people. It further emphasizes that since there are no cultural or
social justifications for discriminating against or judging individuals from different backgrounds
and origins based on their beliefs and practices.
In James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” the author emphasizes five claims
about cultural difference. 
The first claim of cultural relativism is that different societies have different moral codes.
Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are just opinions, and those
opinions vary from culture to culture. The argument relies on the fallacy that if a belief is widely
held, then it must be true. The conclusion does not take into account the fact that people's moral
beliefs could be wrong.
Rachels also believes that societies have common rules that everyone must follow in order for
the society to stay together. One such thing is lying. Rachels says that it is wrong to lie in every
society. This is since if it were okay to lie, communication would have no point. The law against
murder is another example. If murder is not against the moral rules, society as a whole will fall
apart.
The second claim is that the moral code of society determines what is right in that society. It
means that if the moral code of a society says a certain action as right, then that action is right at
least within that society. A society's moral code tells its members or the people within that
society trying to take part in it what counts as right or wrong. 
The third claim is that there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society's code.
The implication of this is that there are no moral truths that apply to everyone at all times.  If we
believe that Cultural Relativism is true, we won't be able to condemn or analyze certain cultural
practices that are widely recognized as wrong (e.g. female circumcision & genocide.)
The fourth claim is that the moral code of our own society has no special status. It is but one
among many. However, if people did not believe that they were improving when shifting morals,
why would they change at all? This implication does not seem plausible because a society's
morals aren't likely to change unless there's a good reason to. 
The fifth claim is that it is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant
of them. Rachels states that condemning a specific practice does not mean condemning the entire
culture. It should be noted that there are good and bad practices in one culture. 
Cultural relativism has also strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths is its being solely based on
social betterment or improving of lifestyle. People are creating ways to make sure that it is for
the common good. Also perpetuated because it is working for that certain group. Examples of
strengths are fixed marriages, offering of rice paddies or land for cultivation of crops, or offering
of herds, to a more powerful entity in the society. They are doing these to maintain connections
and to give an asset to someone who is more able to use. It is a strength of a culture, where they
practice these out of practicality and benefit in the long run and for the common good of the
majority. This means that a culture is perpetuating this practice because they see through the
short-term harms, as long as there is a better chance of having a stable income or future for their
families.
On the other hand, the weakness of cultural relativism is, it is inhumane to some certain extent
and cultural practice. An example of this is incinerating or killing gay people for being
homosexual, since loving the same gender is considered as “immoral” to most culture. Also,
there are practices that kills women just because they cannot bear a male offspring. This is being
practiced because of selfish intent, to control and hold power, to control those on the weaker
spectrum of the society. If it is still ongoing, it is because those people who hungers for power is
still dominating in that culture over those who are morally righteous. Those righteous individuals
usually are the victims of power-hungry people at the top.
For us, cultural relativism is plausible. Different cultures with different moral codes has seemed
to be the key to understanding morality. The customs of different societies are all that exist.
These customs cannot be said to be “correct” or “incorrect,” for that implies we have an
independent standard of right and wrong by which they may be judged. The great pioneering
sociologist William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, The "right" way Is the way which the
ancestors used and which has been handed down.
The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of
right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them.
In the folkways, whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and therefore contain
in themselves the authority of the ancestral ghosts. When we come to the folkways we are at the
end of our analysis. This line of thought has probably persuaded more people to be skeptical
about ethics than any other single thing.
Moreover, our own code has no special status it is merely one among many. The lesson has to do
with keeping an open mind. In the course of growing up, each of us has acquired some strong
feelings: We have learned to think of some types of conduct as acceptable, and others we have
learned to reject. Occasionally, we may find those feelings challenged. We may encounter
someone who claims that our feelings are mistaken. For example, we may have been taught that
homosexuality is immoral, and we may feel quite uncomfortable around gay people and see them
as alien and “different.”
Now someone suggests that this may be a mere prejudice; that there is nothing evil about
homosexuality that gay people are just people, like anyone else, who happen, through no choice
of their own, to be attracted to others of the same sex. But because we feel so strongly about the
matter, we may find it hard to take this seriously. Even after we listen to the arguments, we may
still have the unshakable feeling that homosexuals must, somehow, be an unsavory lot.
Cultural Relativism believes that all culture are worthy in their own and are of equal value.
Realizing this can result in our having more open minds. We can come to understand that our
feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth they may be nothing more than the result of
cultural conditioning. Thus when we hear it suggested that some elements of our social code is
not really the best, and we find ourselves instinctively resisting the suggestion, we might stop
and remember this. Then we may be more open to discovering the truth, whatever that might be.
We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, even though the theory has serious
shortcomings. It is an attractive theory because it is based on a genuine insight that many of the
practices and attitudes we think so natural are really only cultural products. Moreover, keeping
this insight firmly in view is important if we want to avoid arrogance and have open minds.
These are important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can accept these points without going
on to accept the whole theory.