The argument of moral relativism is an age-old philosophical debate. A moral relativist concludes that since morals are defined culturally, there can be no set of universal principles. On the other side of the spectrum, a moral universalist believes the exact opposite. They conclude that there are moral rights and wrongs that apply to every single person, regardless of their cultural background. Both sides present structurally sound arguments, which is why the debate has been around for centuries. Morality is not relative because all cultures share similar values and moral relativism would never work.
In James Rachels’ Why Morality is Not Relative, he states “We cannot conclude, then, merely because customs differ, that there is a disagreement about values.” (149). Rachels is claiming that although a culture drastically affects someones belief system, their core values are universal. The example he uses pertains to the eskimos, who often kill their young. This custom is often viewed at face value, and henceforth, the eskimos are viewed as morally wrong. Taking a deeper look into the eskimos values, their actions are much more justified. They kill their young because of a short food supply. Instead of letting the babies suffer, they opt to ease their pain. The core value the eskimos are showing in this example is the protection of children, a universal value.
The idea of universal values sounds extremely plausible. The eskimos resort to killing as a way to protect their children. To compare that, an American mother may never let her child stray too far away in public as a means of protecting them. These two vastly different cultures share the same core value, which shows that their cultural moral system may also share similarities. Rachels states that “there are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.” (151). The examples he states to back this up is protection of young, lying, and murder. There is a universal agreement that society would not exist without these baseline rules, regardless of culture. These universal values are proof that cultures vary less and less than moral relativists believe. Thus, judgements could theoretically be made about a culture regarding values since they tend to be the same for all cultures. Straying away from this point, it is important to realize that moral relativism is an outlandish theory when taken seriously.
Cultural relativism, in it’s truest form, cannot work at any point in history. Rachels highlights what the consequences would be if cultural relativism were true. He summarizes them into 3 main points: “We can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own” (Rachels, 146), “We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society” (Rachels, 147), and “The idea of moral progress is called into doubt” (Rachels, 147). Breaking down each of these points, all of them show that if taken seriously, society would be much different. Using examples for each point, it can be proven just how wrong moral relativism can be.
The first point says that no matter how morally wrong a cultures custom may seem, no judgements can be passed outside of that culture. Rachels’ example of how this is wrong can be taken from Nazi Germany. A custom within that culture was the idea of anti-semitism. The only reason Germany and many other cultures in the world have strayed away from anti-semitism is because other cultures expressed how that custom was inferior to the idea of treating Jews like everyone else. Had other cultures not pointed out that their custom was inferior, Naziism may have never disbanded. This is one of many examples of how society functions better when other cultures are allowed to step in and pass judgement.
The second point is saying that within a culture, any question can be answered simply by consulting their societal code. Rachels example to prove this wrong is the Apartheid in South Africa. This statement can be proven wrong when applied to most governments that have collapsed. Take, for example, the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin committed mass genocide in Ukraine by creating a nationwide famine. If a Russian citizen wanted to question whether the famine was right or wrong, they would just have to check the standards of their culture. Since Stalin’s regime deemed the famine as culturally acceptable, and the idea of it conformed to the societal code, then the famine was morally right (according to a moral relativist). This point alone makes moral relativism seem barbaric and unreasonable. Societies are built on constructive criticism of its customs, but if this were correct, that would never be able to happen.
The final point regards moral progress as something that is wrong. For example, stating that slavery within any culture is not better or worse than slavery being abolished. Cultural relativism states that no judgement could be made, since that was just the standard of the time. Any reasonable person could see that this is fundamentally wrong. History shows that societies that abolish slavery flourish (i.e. America, Greece, Rome, etc.). Progress is crucial for a culture and acknowledging wrong practices is necessary for morality to evolve.
Moral Relativists don’t see things the same way. A moral relativist who presents a well-formed argument is Ruth Benedict. The premise of her argument is that social norms are created within cultures, therefore judgments cannot be made about another. Basically, societies set the precedent of what is normal and the inhabitants of that society conform to them. What another culture views as “abnormal”, is only viewed that way because it is not a norm within their culture. Therefore, nobody can judge another society because “The very eyes with which we see the problem are conditioned by the long traditional habits of our own society.” (Benedict, 129). While her argument is a fresh and realistic take on moral relativism, the examples stated above still prove this to be wrong. Nazi Germany was viewed as “abnormal” because it was universally immoral and wrong. Most norms within a culture deserve to be left alone, but the outliers need to be judged by other cultures or else society would collapse into a state of pure chaos.
The takeaway from this is that both sides have their flaws, but moral universalism is the more realistic approach to the question. It’s an undisputed fact that different cultures have different moral codes, but that doesn’t mean some of those codes aren’t allowed to come into question. There are universal principles that are shared, therefore there may as well be some form of universal human culture.