Get help now
  • Pages 5
  • Words 1001
  • Views 12
  • Faith
    Verified writer
    • rating star
    • rating star
    • rating star
    • rating star
    • rating star
    • 4.7/5
    Delivery result 4 hours
    Customers reviews 348
    Hire Writer
    +123 relevant experts are online

    A Discussion of Cultural Relativism

    Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get help now

    124 experts online

    I intend to explain my position on cultural relativism and whether I believe it to be the best judge of moral values. Culture Relativism claims that the correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies. While subjectivists do think that the right answers to ethics lay and are relative to each individual person’s values, cultural relativism will instead state that the ultimate standard of morality lays within each culture’s commitments instead of individual values.  In other words, our morals are based on the values that our society believes to be correct.

    Morality is also something that was “created” by humans for humans. If it wasn’t for humans, we’d have no questions about morals.  They are a set of rules and guidelines by which we live because society has developed them over the years to tell us what is right and what is believed to be wrong.  Morals were invented to guide our decisions between right and wrong and no other species has these sets of rules.  When humans perish from the earth so will what we believe to be right and wrong.

    The first problem with cultural relativism is that it can’t allow for consistent disagreements within the individuals own social code, in other words as long as a society can make any moral mistakes then the society’s approval is not going to be enough to show that something is good morally.

    The second problem with cultural relativism is not a very good in defending tolerance. In most societies, tolerance isn’t favored so relativism tells us that intolerance within those societies is a good thing.  We cannot teach tolerance when cultural relativism doesn’t defend it.

    Cultural relativism teaches us that what we as a society believe is correct is good and what we object to as a whole is bad. We raise our kids in the same manner and with the same beliefs with which we were raised without pausing to rethink or reteach an issue because that is what we were taught was right and wrong. For example, suppose that you were raised to believe interracial marriages were wrong because it was intolerated. In cultural relativism you also have to accept that that type of racial intolerance is a good. If you accept the premise you’d have to accept the conclusion as well or else you’d be rejecting cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is also intolerant toward minority views which are deemed wrong automatically.

    If we were to accept cultural relativism, we would raise our kids to think and live by the norms of our society. We would essentially be teaching our kids and the generations to follow conformity. A perfect example of this is in the book, “The Ethical Life” by Russ Shafer-Landau, “My Nazi society approves of racism, so racism is good.” Is that truly how we would want to raise our next generation? Or those that will follow?

    In conclusion, I do not believe in cultural relativism is the best to judge moral rights and wrongs. If does not teach tolerance and it does not favor the views of minorities then we are going to continue to raise a society of intolerable individuals who believe that any minority views are wrong… wait a minute, aren’t we doing that now?




    My Take on Mackie’s Argument from


    What I am about to attempt to do is give

    my interpretation of Mackie’s Argument from Queerness and why I believe that he

    is correct in concluding that his theory is the only plausible metaethical theory.

    According to J. L. Mackie’s excerpt from

    his book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977) he believes and he outlines

    the ideas and arguments for his error theory. He believes that all moral talk

    is based on the false assumption: that there are objective moral values. Mackie’s

    error theory is a position characterized by his commitment to two propositions.

    The first is again that all moral claims are false and the second is that we

    have reason to believe that all moral claims are false.

    In Mackie’s argument from queerness he

    explains that his argument from queerness has two parts. A metaphysical saying

    that if there were to be objective values then they would be in two entities or

    qualities or relations of a very strange sort and would be very different from

    anything else in the universe. The second part is an epistemological one which

    states that if we were aware of them, then we would have to be by some special

    faculty or more perception or intuition which would be utterly different from

    ordinary ways of knowing everything else. In the metaphysical part of the argument from

    queerness, Mackie argues that objective values, including objective moral

    values, do not exist because they are metaphysically anomalous.  In this

    he assumes that moral objectivism entails nonnaturalism, which Mackie considers

    ontologically queer.  Secondly, if moral

    objectivism were true, then internalism about moral motivation would also be


    Ethical objectivism is the view that some

    moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively


    I perceived that the error theory to mean that

    it is a cognitivist form of moral nihilism. It’s the view that ethical

    statements can be propositions. Although

    all ethical propositions are to be false or cannot be true and that we are

    generally in error when we make any moral statement.

    In conclusion, I tend to believe in Mackie’s

    views and I think that his error theory to be correct and the most plausible one.

    I think the main reason for this line of

    thinking for me is that I do not believe that all of our moral rights and wrong

    are correct at any time. No matter what our

    morals are we will always be countered with an opposing view. No matter how much we agree or disagree with one

    another we will always have a counter-argument from other individuals..

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need custom essay sample written special for your assignment?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    A Discussion of Cultural Relativism. (2022, Nov 29). Retrieved from

    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper