On cultural relativism and some other forms of relativism

2020

Ethical relativism is a theory in ethics, which holds that morality is culture-dependentand thus culturally validated. This study is a critical inquiry into this doctrine and itsimplications on environmental ethics and sustainability. It presents the doctrine ofethical relativism and draws attention to what appears appealing in this theory. Itthen focuses critically on the problems associated with it that makes it unappealing.The study argues that the differences in cultural beliefs and norms, which ethicalrelativists portray to exist in different cultures, are exaggerated since they are not asdifferent in values as they would want us to believe. The study criticizes this view ofethical relativism by arguing against some of its canons. Thereafter, it attempts a briefexplication of what environmental ethics is, and attend to the negative implications ofethical relativism on environmental ethics and environmental sustainability. It arguesamong others that ethical relativism would lead...

2021

This study analyses the implications, which ethical relativism would have when applied in environmental study and conservation. It examines whether the complex questions raised in environmental ethics and about environmental sustainability at a global scale can be resolved within the context of ethical relativism. It also concurrently inquires whether the challenges posed by the natural environment can be resolved or mitigated within relativist context. The study discusses the nature of ethical relativism and draws attention to the limitations of the standpoint of this theory. Thereafter, it discusses the nature of environmental ethics and its relation to ecological degradation and sustainable environment. It then argues that ethical relativism is a bad marriage in environmental ethics and sustainability, and a bad candidate in resolving the challenges posed by the natural environment, given not only the fact that most environmental problems transcend cultural borders but also that ...

Cultural relativism, which has been discussed in the different modes of thought for many years by a great number of philosophers, greets the eye as one of the crucial subjects of philosophy. Whilst a number of philosophers have a tendency for supporting it, the other majority takes a critical stance towards it as opponents. But it is still unclear whether or not it may be possible to find a way out in order to assert that there could be a middle way. As the third group, the philosophers, who argue that there could be a middle way to discuss the matter, strongly take an attention of two categories concerning cultural relativism, namely descriptive and normative cultural relativism. Since descriptive cultural relativism is just due diligence, that is, it is only interested in the factual observations on cultures and it reports what it notes without any judgments and evaluations, descriptive cultural relativism says normatively nothing on the moral dimensions of cultures and societies. It may be the best way that the general proclivity to evaluate the matter is to focus on the arguments for/against to most specifically normative cultural relativism. In this paper, what we have tried to do is to emphasize the arguments for and against to normative cultural relativism so as to show whether or not it is sound and supportable.

Common sense and the pursuit of science both assume that there is a stable external reality including things, animals, and other people whose properties cannot be altered merely by our wishing that they were different, or by how we define them, and that we come to understand these properties by experience and reasoning. While absolute certainty can never be attained, at least some closer approximation to the truth can be reached by the successive elimination of errors.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 2017

The aim of this review article is to reveal the cons and pros of ethical relativism, especially conventionalism. This article is written with the intention of showing some of the practical upshots of conventionalism without totally denying some of its virtues in a world where diversity of cultures and customs is apparent. The article inquires the question: Is ethical relativism tenable? The review article relies on reviewing secondary sources. What I am arguing in this article is that despite the attraction of ethical relativism as an intellectual weapon to fight against ethnocentrism and cultural intolerance, the view still goes against the idea of intercultural comparison, criticism and moral argumentation, so that it would have serious disastrous implication on practice, especially on the universal character of human rights and shutters all together any sort of moral progress and reform. The article concludes that we can set forth certain objective moral codes, discovered through...

A brief look at the view that 'one man's meat is another man's poison'.

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 2004

Renato Bonasera, 2025

The theory that the definition of and search for truth, the delineation of ethical principles and moral behaviour, as well as the view of man this produces, are all relative to culture (and are justified within the confines of the said culture), is erroneous. This is to adopt a very limited view of humankind and its capacity to adhere to a Natural Law which transcends time, space and culture, and which is not diminished by the fact that not all cultures adhere to it in the same way. Even where there are moral or ethical differences between cultures, these differences are not as extreme as are the similarities.

Society, 2008

The meanings and implications of cultural relativism have been debated for decades. Reprising this debate, Roger Sandall offers a pointed critique of the anthropological concept of culture and identifies relativism as the internal and corrosive enemy of the open society. I challenge his reading of our predicament. Considering the work of Franz Boas and his debts to the philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, I distance the social science concept of culture from positions-the rejection of standards of truth, beauty, and morality; the belief that cultural value systems and practices are all equally true (or untrue); the valorization of primitivism-that are not intrinsic to it. Next, I consider the use of culture in the "philosophy of primitivism" and its meanings in multiculturalism and identity politics. I argue that many ostensibly relativist claims are used to serve non-relativist agendas, or hide universalistic claims in unstated but essential premises and background assumptions. Rather than a world dominated by relativism, where cultural differences are held to be inviolable and cross-cultural judgments have been rendered impossible, I see something like the reverse. Our problem is not that we overvalue cultural differences but that we underestimate them. Even in our multiculturalism, we imagine a sameness of outlook and aspiration, an unwitting projection of ourselves in the end.