Many critics of cultural relativism have drawn attention to its central paradox. Since relativism developed in the subculture of modern anthropology, how can an anthropologist defending these views say that they are better than their opposites, without resorting to the same universal guidelines that they claim to deny? "If everything is relative," Hilary Putnam points out somewhere, "then so is the relative." A cultural relativist cannot even say that one culture is as good as another, since he has no objective criteria to define what is meant by "as good as."
In his book Man and His Works: The Science of Cultural Anthropology, Melville J. Herskovits praised cultural relativism for its being tolerant towards all ethical norms. But some cultures do not respect tolerance. Why did Herskovits suppose that tolerance is more admirable than intolerance? He ends the book by saying that cultural relativism "takes man one step further in the search for what he should be." What should it be? If humanity should be different from what it is, what guidelines does Herskovits rely on to make this claim?
But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?
how can an anthropologist defending these views say that they are better than their opposites, without resorting to the same universal guidelines that they claim to deny?
What is needed is to attempt to help other to see, from their own perspective , what we find to be more insightful in dealing with people, rather than resorting to condemnation and moralistic blame.
My question for Nietzsche would be: Why should we embrace his view? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
My question for Nietzsche would be: Why should we embrace his view? If moral judgments are mere imaginings then by what criteria does he judge that we should abandon them. Surely if this were the case it would make no difference whether we embraced or abandoned them. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Since relativism developed in the subculture of modern anthropology, how can an anthropologist defending these views say that they are better than their opposites, without resorting to the same universal guidelines that they claim to deny?
What is needed is to attempt to help other to see, from their own perspective , what we find to be more insightful in dealing with people, rather than resorting to condemnation and moralistic blame. — Joshs
What I am suggesting is not a strict enforcement of moral codes, as I see fit. Because how do I know that I am right? What i am suggesting is that it is possible for me to be wrong — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
How does the moral relativist know that it is better (morally) to trust his own ethical perspective rather than someone else's? If he is consistent, It would seem that he'll have to say that he also doesn't know that.
But in that case, his decision to prefer his own perspective rather than other people's perspective is arbitrary, and therefore the moralist may retort that he has no right to say that that is “needed”. — Amalac
But if we adopted this mindset then the powerful would rule everyone and the weak would have no chance. We would actually be going in the opposite direction of where we wanted to be headed. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You and I have no choice but to trust our own perspective because that is the only perspective that we have. Even when we trust someone else’s , we still have to interpret the other’s view though our own perspective , so there’s no getting around a personalistic vantage. — Joshs
If that is what you mean, then there is no meaning in calling a perspective “one's own perspective” rather than “someone else's perspective”, since it couldn't be any other way. — Amalac
Why do moral relativists bother trying to suggest that others should act differently then, if everyone, without exception, acts according to their own perspective? There is no point for the moral relativist to say anything about moral relativism then, since so interpreted it's just trivial. — Amalac
Does the moral relativist claim that we should not trust someone else (A moralist, for example) who says that the moral relativist is wrong?
If so, how do they know that that is a better way of acting than its opposite? — Amalac
How do you know that you are not claiming implicitly that I should believe you?
How do you know that you are not implicitly claiming that you know that what you say is morally preferable? — Amalac
As previously stated, moral relativism is — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Most moral relativists, as stated above, are really absolutists — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
The problem of morality - which you have essentially described as a code of conduct - isn't resolved so much in how people behave and how they want to be treated, but in the justification of applied ethics. What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong? — Tom Storm
What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong?
I believe that we should reject the idea of moral relativism for several reasons. All of these reasons can be summed up in the overly generalized, not really accurate, statement: No one actually believes it. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Most moral relativists, as stated above, are really absolutists who have just chosen another maxim to live their lives by than that of the current status quo — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Moral relativism claims that morality is merely a whim of ours — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
My argument is simply that there is a moral right and moral wrong, without which our moral rebukes, including the thought that we should not subscribe to set moral laws, are groundless. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
You can say killing is wrong in almost all cultures but that is not specific enough. In some cultures infanticide is or was practiced, or human sacrifice/wife burning, etc. Killing is subject to interpretations. Drilling down into specific actions helps clarify the moral morass that is human behavior. — Tom Storm
If we hold a position that there is a right way to behave morally but we may be unable to identify or justify this conclusively, then how is this different in practical terms to relativism? — Tom Storm
My default could be to accept any action until you demonstrate how it is wrong. — Tom Storm
2. is not accurate. Judgements are made according to cultural standards and custom and personal preferences - these are not objective but may be shared by many. Relativism does not deny there are independent standards, it just says that there are many of these standards and they are not shared, they differ between folks and assessing one against the other isn't possible. — Tom Storm
As to why I point out the outrageous beliefs of true moral relativists, is to point out to those who claim to believe in it without giving it much thought, where their supposed worldview gets them. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
1. Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard.
2. Judgements of value cannot be made without an independent standard.
3. Actions have value.
4. Therefore moral relativism is false. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Historically and today, moral absolutism has not actually been an impediment to the powerful and there's really no denying that. — Judaka
Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their natural support.
Across the world, many governments see homosexuality as objectively immoral, the oppressed homosexual has absolutely no recourse. — Judaka
I don't believe that's a coincidence, honestly and fairly debating moral issues is just more difficult when morality is absolute and dislodging harmful moral views is much more difficult. — Judaka
And who would those people be? I mean, who would be the people who actually believe all the stuff you say they believe? Your mistake, I think, is in ascribing so many attributes to "true moral relativists" that hardly anyone would recognize themselves in your characterization. And that makes the whole project into an exercise in futility. — SophistiCat
Independent of what any people believe? As if it was woven into the fabric of the universe - or the mind of God? — SophistiCat
But how does (2) follow? You give examples of broad trends and commonalities in moral beliefs, but how does that show that they stem from some mind-independent standards? What you describe is perfectly consistent with morality being a product (or byproduct) of human nature and history. Why would we need to appeal to anything beyond that to explain these facts? — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.