Cultural relativism encompasses one of the utmost dire viewpoints that challenge the universal certainty in truth. The idea progresses the notion of varying distinct and definite moral codes among the different cultures. However, diversity among cultures creates tension between local norms and values as well as universal ethics as observed by Mele and Sanchez-Runde (2013). According to Kant (1964), standards are kinds of actions that can be accepted across the board even though ethnic diversity glorifies cultural contingency as a fact.
The point of departure in cultural relativism is found in the fact that there can never be a universal truth in issues of ethics because every standard that upholds morality is specific to the culture involved. The universal truth theory departs from any such charge since it lacks objectivism and rationalism because decent truth is a common denominator that applies to all
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
religions.
More in-depth insight into universal relativism and ethics reveals apparent the contradictions between the two themes become. Societies that embrace the belief that there can never be an ultimate right or wrong lose the ability to make any reasonable judgments. This is because of the very nature of understanding accrues from the belief that some engagements are erroneous because others are right (Heller, 2016). Moreover, if this thought was false, then there would be no threshold against which to measure the right actions. How forms of relativism, and this includes cultural relativism, have penetrated modern society reveals the problematic ways in which human societies try to deal with the contradiction.
In the wake of the contradictions between morality and ethics, tolerance has found its way into the complication and has ultimately come to imply unconditionally supporting and agreeing to all manner of opinions as well as lifestyles. However, factions that choose intolerance and reason cannot be supported or agreed with by other factions that decide to blindly follow through (Vuceticha et al., 2018).
Tolerance has been elevated to become the definition of good, and this contradicts the entire conception of relativism. Relativism is typically conceptualized to validate all perceptions and points of view, and this means in ethics that all positions are good. Holding such a view is inherently false since it even invalidates the place of relativism in morality.
Although there exist distinctions and unique features among all cultures and traditions, heinous crimes like murder and rape are usually treated in the same scope of moral judgment across the board and do not attract any special treatment. However, strict cultural relativism cannot admit to the wrongful nature of actions (Bonatti, 2008).
A rational inspection of honest thinking regularly faces personal dilemmas regarding how societies acknowledge ethical contemplations as well as how they cope with conflicts among them. These are the two paradigms that determine how such society reasons and their ultimate reactions to these ideologies.
Ethics is one of the forces that shape life and behavior in human activities, whereas the system of ethics frequently contributes to the survival of the group. Moreover, it assists in keeping peace and order and in the satisfaction of the needs of society. The core of the definition of ethics, the values that make actions wrong or right, change according to the time and the place in context.
Most advanced societies accept some basic principles of morality. Additionally, many modern scholastic writers regularly defend the universal nature of some of the laws of ethics. The limitations found in the quality of universality usually survive in instances of war, discrimination, among other factors.
Social contingency cannot overwhelm the logical limitations of reason, and they cannot supersede the intellect of ethics that is found to be intrinsic in human nature. Human societies are bred to understand some facts as inherently wrong, and hence, they cannot try to tweak their philosophy towards the same fit. Declaring some actions as wrong or right simply implies constructing the procedures as one goes.
When societies declare that various moralities are better than others even when it is true, they are not the best means using ultimate standards to render judgment. Firmly stating that anything is wrong seeks to invalidate the core ideas and tenets of relativism because according to the theory, what is wrong in one context may be right in another.
Ultimately factions that stick to cultural relativism must abandon logic since there is never enough room to contain both ideologies. Rationality and logic inhibit the belief that there are moral absolutes or even jettison the notion in any meaningful manner. Modernity seems to suggest the need to search for principles of the universal nature of morality in consideration of the ecology of nature.
Progress in ethics lags far behind, and therefore, there is a need to consider a scientific explanation of facts when the complete annihilation of human species becomes a reality. Since as insinuated before, the basic principles of morality apply to all regardless of cultural inclination, it follows that all these cultures are contained within a set of norms or ethics even though these might not be universal.
The belief that ethical principles or standards are universal is an ancient commonplace regarding many traditions of ethics in contemporary political life. Additionally, the idea appeals to the laws of universal human rights. However, it remains controversial, and there are multiple sources of controversy. The nature of universalism in ethics can be identified around the claims concerning the form, scope, or content of the principles of ethics.
Moreover, it contends with the very idea that the ethical judgment appeal to principles as opposed to particular cases. Additionally, it may be identified using various claims, and these are meant to single out fundamental universal principles. All other forms of principles of ethics and judgments are derived from this very principle. The ideological disagreements can be clarified and even partly resolved by making out the difference between the ethical considerations of universalism.
The primary key to the comprehension of morality for many thinkers has been grounded in the idea that different cultures uphold and maintain different moral codes. Such believers think that the concept of the universality of truth remains a myth that should be shunned at all times. Instead, they believe that there are different customs for every culture and every belief system, and these are the foundations of moral standards.
Various customs cannot be praised as being correct or castigated as being incorrect base on any group’s understanding of moral uprightness. According to Kant (1964), an action can either be termed wrong or right based on whether they fulfill the duty for which they are meant and not on kinds of consequences they attract. Therefore, it is inaccurate to think that stealing is evil when, in fact, it leads to satisfactory outcomes. In the same view, it is incorrect to consider telling the truth is the right thing to do if indeed it leads to pain.
Customs can neither be correct nor wrong because they cannot be tied to any particular moral standard in society. For instance, some communities practice the mutilation of female genitals and refer to this as a necessary step in transitioning girls to women. However, when other people look at these communities from the outside, they may seem evil due to the kind of pain such procedures accrue and the fact that some victims end up dying due to excessive bleeding. However, it is inaccurate to measure the goodness or the badness of this action based on the views of outsider communities that do not practice it.
Although it is impossible to pinpoint and castigate community and personal actions because of the cultural context, shying away from this means there is nothing wrong or right in the universe and that everything is inherently correct and reasonable to do. However, there is no independent standard because every principle usually is bound to a specific culture.
As Melé, Mele, and Sánchez-Runde, (2013) posits, the correct way is that which has been used over time and handed down from one generation to the next. Therefore one of the overarching characteristics of morally upright actions is age, and therefore, the tradition warrants the work. It cannot be held subject to the verification by experience.
Overall, the universal truth theory departs from charges about the disconnection between morality and culture since it lacks objectivism and rationalism because the ethical fact is a comprehensive paradigm that applies to all philosophies. The notion of right and wrong is generally in the folkways and not outside of it. This line of thought has made people become skeptical about the ideas of ethics and morality compared to any other purposes. Social contingency defies the regular certainty in the universality as well as the objectivity of moral truth. In fact, it posits the non-existence of the universal truth in ethics. Instead, it supposes the existence of various codes of culture that both unified and compromises truth.
References
Bonatti, L. (2008). Cultural relativism and ideological policymakers in a general equilibrium model with for-profit and non-profit enterprises. Research in Economics, 62 (1), 1-15.
Heller, L. (2016). Between relativism and pluralism: Philosophical and political relativism in Feyerabend's late work. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 57 (1), 96-105.
Kant, I. (1964). Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper Torchbooks.
Melé, D., & Sánchez-Runde, C. (2013). Cultural diversity and universal ethics in a global world . Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-013-1814-z
Vuceticha, J., Burnham, D., Macdonald, E., Silvio, J. B., Alexandra, M., & Macdonald, D. (2018). Authority, cultural relativism, and the principles of just conservation: Rejoinder to Pooley and Redpath (2018). Biological Conservation, 223 (1), 184-185.
Walls, L. D. (2018). Emerson's Life in Science: The Culture of Truth . Cornell University Press.
