Cultural Relativism: Are moral claims true of false absolutely, or only relatively to their cultural context?

No one can deny the fact that we live in a multicultural society and that there is a need to understand and tolerate some of the beliefs and practices of other cultures in order to make our world function peacefully. But this brings up one of the most controversial questions regarding ethics: are moral claims true or false absolutely or only relative to their cultural context?

The ethical standpoint that says that moral claims are true or false relatively to their cultural context is called meta-ethical cultural relativism. It is a theory where in all perspectives and moral claims are equally acceptable and are true or false based only on the convictions, ideology and principles of the culture where the moral claims have been made. Thus, according to cultural relativism, moral claims are true nor false depending only upon the cultural background and identity of the individual making the claims.

Although this theory sounds appealing and has drawn many people to it, I disagree with cultural relativism. To say that moral claims are neither true nor false absolutely and are only relative to their cultural context is wrong. In my opinion, morality is not based upon different cultures¡¦ opinions. There is always an absolute truth when dealing with moral claims.

Take for example the debate about the geography of the earth. Some cultures believed that the earth is flat, and some cultures believed that the earth is round. Cultural relativism says that there is no absolute truth in regard to this argument. However, upon thinking about it we realize that there is an absolute truth in the geography of earth. We have evidence that the earth is not flat, but is round. And hence we realize that the cultures which believed that the world was flat were wrong.

Cultural relativism dictates that in ethics, there is no absolute truth, or in other words ¡§there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.¡¨ (1) According to cultural relativism, this is because different cultures have different moral codes. But what if two people from different cultures disagree about a moral claim? Take for example the moral claim of whether or not genocide is right or wrong. Some cultures may think that it is right to murder people of a certain race, and some people will think that it is morally wrong. So, taken in accordance the theory of cultural relativism, does this mean that there is no objective truth? Does this mean that genocide is neither right nor wrong universally, but is right or wrong in relation only to the approval of the culture where it is done? Of course not. Genocide, the execution of a race of people is morally wrong universally, because like it is said in article two and article five of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights ¡§Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms¡Kwithout distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty¡¨ (2) and ¡§No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.¡¨ (3)

The argument for meta-ethical cultural relativism is that ¡§we should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards the practices of other cultures¡¨ (4) because ¡§it is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples.¡¨ (5) Hence, we should judge other cultures¡¦ practices based not on our culture, but on what is considered appropriate in their society. So, although members of an uncivilised society are allowed to behave in one way, not everyone is allowed to behave in that way, and nor should we say if their practices are right or wrong ¡V we should just tolerate them. For example, Eskimos practice infanticide and consider it a correct practice because due to their harsh environment and their nomadic way of life, they are unable to care for a lot of children. However, people from our society who have never experienced such a harsh environment consider infanticide immoral. Cultural relativism says that we should not judge this practice. We should just tolerate the fact that Eskimos must (under some circumstances) kill their children without having given them a chance to live because ¡§each culture must be examined in terms of its own structures and values, instead of being rated by the standards of some other civilization exalted as absolute ¡V which in practice of course is always our own civilization¡¨ (6)

My reply to the argument for meta-ethical cultural relativism is that sometimes cultural relativism validates intolerance. Take for example the intolerance of Christianity in Nepal. It is not tolerated to such an extent that there are laws regarding Christianity, making the baptismal of a person, sharing your faith and preaching to others illegal. People who are caught taking part in these activities are persecuted and put in jail. Complying with the ideas of cultural relativism, it is perfectly correct for this culture to not tolerate Christianity and persecute Christians. Hence, meta-ethical cultural relativism allows and validates intolerance.

Now, consider the example I gave regarding genocide. Should we tolerate this practice because it was deemed correct in a society like Germany? Was it morally correct for Adolf Hitler to have murdered all those innocent Jews, Gypsies and Poles? Of course not! Not all cultural practices are correct. While some can be tolerated and respected (such as the practices which comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), this does not mean that we must tolerate all the practices of different cultures. We cannot just stand back and tolerate the murder of innocent people; but this is exactly what cultural relativism is telling us we should do. We must recognize the fact that some cultural practices are simply better than others because if we do not, then we would tolerate and allow cultural practices which dehumanise other humans to continue. In fact, according to Henry Bagish, ¡§any belief or practice that enables human beings to predict and control events in their lives, with a higher degree of success than previous beliefs or practices did, can be said to ¡¥work better¡¦.¡¨ (7) Hence, we cannot tolerate and respect cultural practices which violate universal values and beliefs of what is right and wrong. We cannot tolerate the cultural practices of Germany in the time of Hitler which resulted in the genocide of six million Jews, or the apartheid cultural practice of white South Africans which denied Negros in their country basic human rights until just a few years ago. We have an obligation to oppose such cultural practices and to put a stop to them in this case; there is a moral right or wrong. And in this case, the moral standards by which we can judge what is right or wrong comes in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even though each individual culture has its own ethical system and moral codes of behaviour for the members of that culture, there is still an absolute universal truth. I agree with Vincent Ruggiero when he said ¡§if there is no observable control transcending all cultures, no eternal book of rules, then right and wrong are a matter of opinion and it doesn¡¦t matte what we do: anything goes!¡¨ (8) If all moral claims are relative to culture then there is no moral absolute with which we can judge right or wrong. So how could we object to a certain culture¡¦s practice of mutilating the genitals of young girls, or using children as the subjects to painful experiments which would eventually result in psychological disorders? How could we protest at one nation devastating another through the use of nuclear weapons? How could we say that murdering families because they have different religious and political beliefs, or annihilating another race because they look different is wrong? A cultural relativist would tolerate this and deny the fact that there is an absolute truth. But think about it. Do you think that way? I do not. We cannot tolerate moral claims and cultural practices which dehumanise other people and contravene universal values such as valuing life, and respecting the well-being and the dignity of people other than ourselves. Moral claims are not relative to culture ¡V there is always an absolute truth.