Rachels: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Watch the video clip. Is this like "just his opinion, maaaaaaaan" or is he mistaken?
Ricky and subjectivism: Season 5 episode 8 Dressed All Over and Zesty Mord...
Socrates Man and Relativism
Plotagon Explanation of the article.
Additional Reading: Who's to say what's right and wrong? (Sharvy)
"Freshman Relativism" and Trump


Cultural relativism is the position that there is no independent standard by which to judge competing culture's standard's of right or wrong.   What's right for culture A may be wrong for culture B and there is no outside standard by which to mediate the competing positions.  Rachel's project is to undermine the force of cultural relativism and by extension, ethical skepticism (i.e., anti-realism).

The standard basic argument used for cultural relativism goes like this:
(P1)  Different cultures have different moral codes.
(P2)  The only way we could evaluate which culture's standards are right and which are wrong is if there were an independent moral standard (external to both) from which to judge.
(P3)  There's no objective (external) standard by to judge a culture's values.
(C)  Cultural moral codes cannot be judged by external standards.   Acts can only be judged from within a culture's own moral framework.

The standard argument can actually be expanded to include other implied premises:
Implied premises:
(1)  Different societies have different moral codes.
(2)  There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
(3)  The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
(4)  There is no "universal truth" in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
(5)  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.
(6)  It is mere arrogance to us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples.  We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.

At its heart the argument for cultural relativism can be boiled down to:
(P1)  Different cultures have different moral codes.
(C)  Therefore, there is no objective moral truth in morality.  Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The argument fails because mere disagreement (i.e., differing beliefs) isn't evidence for there being no objective truth on a matter.  This can be very easily seen in the context of a scientific debate: Just because one person believes the earth is flat and another says it's spherical, it doesn't follow necessarily that there's no objective truth about the matter.

From disagreement it could follow that both parties are wrong, one is wrong and one is right, or that that there is no objective truth.  3 possible outcomes follow from disagreement, not just one.  The other 2 must be dismissed before we can accept only one or at least, the evidence for one must be stronger than the evidence for the other 2.

Taking the Consequences of CR Seriously Student Plotagon Explanation
Student Explanation 2
Let's suppose CR is true, take seriously the idea that right and wrong can't be judged externally, and lets see what that entails...

A.  We could never say that one culture's customs are morally inferior to our own.  For some trivial matters this may seem an enlightened approach.  However, if we consider something like Nazi Germany, we would not be able to criticize this culture for genocide.  Nor would we be able to condemn slavery, genocide, racism, and exploitation of children for sex.

B.  We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our own society.  Suppose we lived in apartheid South Africa and wanted to know if apartheid was morally permissible.  All we'd have to do is see whether this policy conforms with the societies moral code.  Also, internal moral criticism of our own cultural customs wouldn't be possible.  Whatever our culture condones is right for us!

ISSUE: WHAT IS A POSSIBLE REPLY?  HOW MIGHT RACHELS COUNTER-REPLY?

C.  The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.  The only way we could change our society for the better (whatever that would mean) would be to say that the society isn't living up to its own ideals. However, the reformer may not challenge the ideals themselves because, by definition, they are what is right.

Why There is Less Disagreement Than It Seems
Rachels argues that the extent of the differences between cultures' values is over-estimated.

(P1) A society's customs aren't only a result of its values, they're also a product of it's environment, factual belief, religious beliefs, and physical circumstances.
(P2)  Given (P1), we must rule out these other explanations for customs before we can attribute them to different values.
(C)  Therefore, there's possibly less disagreement about values than there appears to be.

ISSUE: WWMS?  (What Would Mackie Say)

Example:
The Inuit often kill perfectly normal infants especially girls.  We don't approve of such things.  It seems to follow that there is a big difference in values between us and the Inuit.

But wait, there's more!

It's not that the Inuit don't value their new born--they'll protect them if conditions permit.  However, their physical conditions impose on them a choice between being able to provide for their existing children and the new born.  Also, since males are the primary food providers, they suffer a higher casualty rate.  Over the long run, the male-female ratio equalizes.  If male infants weren't prioritized at birth, in the long run, there would be a disproportionate number of females (who are not the primary food providers).

Conclusion: infanticide isn't an indication of different values rather a recognition of the drastic measures required to ensure the families survival.   It should also be added, in support of this conclusion, that killing the infant is a last resort.  Adoption is attempted first.

ISSUE:  Does this address the objection that Mackie might have made above?

How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common
Some values must be held by every culture, otherwise, that culture will die.  For example:

A.  All cultural groups must protect their infants.

1. Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive care for a period of years.
2. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the younger would not survive, and the older members of the group would not be replaced.  After a while the group would die out.
3. Therefore, any cultural group that continues to exist must care for its young.  Infants that are not cared for must be the exception rather than the rule. 

B.  Truth telling/promise keeping.

If you never had a reason to believe someone was telling the truth or that they were going to keep their promises, communication would be impossible.  Making plans would be impossible.  Co-operation would be impossible and therefore society would be impossible.  

That fact that there may be situations where exceptions to the rule are permissible doesn't undermine the fact that there is a general rule that is in force in every society. 

C.  Prohibition on Murder

This one you can figure out.

Societies may differ on when exceptions can be made to the rule but this doesn't discount the fact that there is widespread  agreement on rules.  It also follows that there may be an over estimation of the moral differences between societies.

ISSUES:  WWMS? and is Rachels right about the over-estimation of the differences.  Are the disagreements over exceptions trivial? To what degree?  Do disagreements over exceptions undermine his general claim?

Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable

honor killing

acid

ISSUE: WWMS?  WWSS?

When/if we want to judge these practices as "bad," are we being cultural imperialists by imposing our own standards on others?  If we accept CR, then this is what we're doing.  Might there be another way to criticize moral practices outside (or inside) your own moral community?  Is there an objective, culture-neutral standard?

Consider excision: The justifying reasons for the practice are
(a) women incapable of sexual pleasure will be less promiscuous and so there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies in unmarried women.
(b) Wives for whom sex is only a duty are less likely to be unfaithful to their husbands.
(c)  Husbands find sex with an excised woman to be more pleasurable.
etc...

The upshot is the excision is defended on the grounds that it is beneficial to women, men, families, and society.  Here is the neutral standard: does practice x promote or hinder the welfare of the people whose lives are affected by it?
(a) We can ask, as an empirical matter, whether this is true.  If not, we can criticize it.
(b)  We can also ask if there might be some other way to better accomplish the same ends.   If so, then we can be critical of the practice.

The important point is that this standard of evaluation isn't coming from without, but from within despite the fact that it is shared across all cultures.  The good of the community is a value held in common by all member of the community.

Objection 1:
We (i.e., Westerners) have a horrible track-record when it comes to judging and interfering with other cultures.  Lets not fuck shit up anymore.
Reply:  There's a difference between making a moral judgment and doing something about it.

Objection 2:
We should be tolerant of others.  It allows for peaceful co-existence.
Reply:  Ok, but you don't have to be binary about it.  Degrees of tolerance are permissible.  We do this all the time in our own community.  When we see a child being abused in their home we (hopefully) don't conclude "we, who am I to judge how another raises their child--what's right for them, is right for them!"  Also we can criticize a singular practice without saying the entire culture is inferior.   We should expect cultures to be mixes of good and bad practices.

ISSUE:  The tragedy of common-sense morality