The Dumbest Thing Ever: Cultural Relativism

The ethical philosophy known as cultural relativism has grown in popularity during the latter half of the 20th century. It is propagated largely by socio-anthropologists who have found new cultures in our ever-shrinking world, examined their values and ethics, and made the assertion that since it is different, it must be right. To this extent, cultural relativists have made the assertion that ethics are determined by individual society, and that what is done in a society is what is right for that society. This philosophy places the ideals of mankind above any other, and holds that there is no higher standard for measurement, specifically in an ethical sense. A society or culture’s ethics are determined by the prevailing opinion of society, often stated as the current collective cultural consensus. It is the author’s feeling that this philosophy is flawed.
It is the author’s intent to demonstrate the flaws in cultural relativism by outlining and explaining several well-documented criticisms, then to further provide specific examples that will demonstrate flaws within the philosophy. The author also intends to demonstrate the extremes that could be interpreted from the base ideals of the philosophy, and demonstrate how they would be problematic.
First, to examine the flaws of cultural relativism, one must take note of the precedent and documented criticisms that defy the assertions involved. The most ancient and well-noted is Aristotle’s Law of Contradictions. In essence, Aristotle discovered that it was logical and mathematical truth that if one thing is true, the opposite cannot be true. In such a comparison, one thing must be false, the other true. Used as a guide to looking at cultural relativism, we can determine one very important thing that undermines the philosophical basis. If a culture views murder, for example, to be absolutely evil and unethical at all times and another views murder as a necessary part of life, the two societies are in direct conflict. According to cultural relativism, both are correct since their ethics are determined by the prevailing opinion of society. However, Aristotle’s Law of Contradictions demonstrates that one must be false, and the other true.
Some other documents logical criticisms of cultural relativism intone very similar arguments against the philosophy. The anthro-arrogance criticism states that man cannot decide what is and is not ethical, because his experience is so limited in comparison to the vastness of the universe. The scientific problem consists of two major parts, that are somewhat related. The naturalistic fallacy states that just because something is a certain way, it does not necessarily have to be that way. In other words, the way something is does not dictate the way it ought to be. For example, I walked to the store to rent a video earlier today. However, it was not an ethical requirement that I walk to the store to rent a video. This is, at its base, a problem with analysis and interpretation of empirical data, which is the other major factor detailed in the scientific problem. Here, one must question how accurate and precise interpretation of data is. Were significant underlying factors overlooked? Were various religious beliefs taken into account when determining what specific ethics are? Any other number of societal factors could play a role in the development of customs, but not necessarily alter the base ethics involved while seeming to stand in opposition based on the actions themselves.
An inherent flaw that can be found in cultural relativism is one of profound importance. As a cultural relativist, one cannot use a standard to make judgments against another culture. One must also accept, then, that the ethics of a culture are right, as this is the very definition of the philosophy. What, then, does one do when confronted with the problem that no culture, as a whole, lives by the standards of cultural relativism? Could one then make the determination that such a culture is in the wrong? After all, they defy that other cultures’ ethics are right for them, so they are proven to be in the wrong according to the precepts of cultural relativism. Further, it should be noted that, as no society on the planet has a prevailing opinion that cultural relativism is right, then a cultural relativist would be in the wrong to not abide by every detail of his culture’s current collective consensus. Here we see that, by being a cultural relativist, one precludes themselves from being a cultural relativist. This very thing defies the entire belief system upon which the philosophy is based, and shatters its most basic of tenets and values.
From another extreme, where are the boundaries defined as to what determines the current collective cultural consensus? Is it the boundaries of a nation, religion, subculture, or even an alternative lifestyle? To what extent can the boundaries of a society be narrowed? Could a society consist of its own antithetical element if provisions have been made that reveal the acceptance of that element’s existence, while at the same time denouncing its practices? What if laws change while viewpoints of the population do not? For instance, the United States had laws that prohibited various acts of sodomy until very recently. While those laws may have been overturned by the Supreme Court, the opinions of the population have not changed. Those same opinions vary, as well, from areas as big as entire states, to within groups as small as twenty people. At what point is the boundary drawn for the culture, and how can the current collective consensus be determined when there is so much variance within what would be labeled as a single society (i.e., the United States of America)?
When these questions are taken into account, it would seem that the very basic ideals upon which cultural relativism is founded fall apart. When the other more documented criticisms are added into the equation, it would seem that many of the ideals behind the philosophy fail to live up to any sort of practical application. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it is obvious that cultural relativism fails to stand up as a viable ethical practice.