Cultural Standards Are All That We Have free essay sample

Essay, Research Paper Cultural Standards Are All That We Have Our universe is a runing pot of different civilizations, each one unique in its ain regard. Who we are, and what we by and large believe to be true or right is a merchandise of what our society values. Because our manner of life is what we were raised to believe as right, it is frequently difficult to demur the fact that others live otherwise. In world, different civilizations have different moral codifications. The belief in the objectiveness and catholicity of moral truth is an unattainable ideal criterion, and holds no practical value. It is incontrovertible that some values vary from civilization to civilization. As one travels the universe, they will necessarily see diverging moral criterions in many countries, such as have oning apparels, funerary patterns, and abortion. For illustration, in Mainland China abortion is recognized as an of import tool to assist control population growing. In the Republic of Ireland, on the other manus, abortions are non readily available, even when the life of the female parent is at hazard. ( Internet ) Obviously, moralss vary in different societies, and it would be na ve non to admit this. Beliefs of different societies can non be said to be right or wrong, because those judgements would connote that there is a cosmopolitan criterion of right and incorrect. But a cosmopolitan criterion of right and incorrect is non merely hard to joint from an nonsubjective point of view, it is theoretically belly-up. Any person who attempts to explicate an nonsubjective set of values will ever neglect, because the prism through which they analyze the universe will necessarily be marred by their ain experiences and positions. Therefore, moral criterions are really cultural criterions, and nil more. Cultural Relativism posits that there are no cosmopolitan ethical truths, merely assorted cultural codifications. Cultural relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. ( 489 ) One proposition of this theory states that, it is mere haughtiness for us to seek to judge the behavior of other peoples. We should follow an attitude of tolerance toward the patterns of other civilizations. ( 489 ) This is an of import construct because it has a great trade of practical value. The societal and political domains in which we interact mundane are full with biass that can merely be challenged and defeated by unfastened heads. Our civilizations have trained us to believe a certain manner, and we must retrieve to be just in judging when our beliefs are challenged. On the surface, the societal imposts of civilizations different than ours may look inherently immoral. However, in most instances these imposts can be justified by an scrutiny of their historical context and cultural significance. For illustration, the Callatians, a folk of Indians, customarily eat the organic structures of their dead male parents. ( 488 ) Harmonizing to our cultural criterions, this act would be basically immoral. Because we were raised to believe that burying the dead, or cremating them is the merely right thing to make, we would see this act on behalf of the Callatians as morally incorrect. However, to the Callatians eating the flesh of the dead is considered to be an act of regard for the dead, while burying or cremating the dead is seen as dishonourable. ( 493 ) Our disapprobation of the Callatians funerary imposts, or their rejection of ours, can be attributed to the fact that different civilizations yield different moral codifications. It is of import to maintain an unfastened head when covering with other civilizations, because we can neer be confident that our ain socially determined values are in conformity with theirs. All single moral criterions derive from cultural criterions. Individual criterions are really a merchandise of cultural conditioning, and do non normally diverge from what a individual has been trained by their society to believe. From birth until decease a individual is engulfed in society, invariably subjected to endless sums of cultural propaganda. This cultural propaganda comes in the signifiers of advertizements, schooling, and faith. One can non read a newspaper, or watch telecasting without seeing countless advertizements that endorse ideals that are autochthonal to our society. Schools in America instill many thoughts in the young person of our state, and construct a foundation for their single beliefs. Because of this, many Americans single moral criterions are based on the same basic beliefs. If you were to near an American, and asked him, Do you believe in freedom of address, in most instances he would enthusiastically reply, yes without vacillation. However, if you asked the same inquiry to person from communist China, they may hold a different sentiment. Because people are raised to believe certain thoughts, in most instances their single ethical codifications conform to those of the society that they were raised in. Religion besides plays a important function in determining a individual s beliefs. Religious beliefs are sewn into the togss of a society, and they continually help model a individual s moral criterions. Religious ethical motives are normally the first set of ethical motives that a individual is officially taught. In a society with spiritual beliefs such as our ain, the Ten Commandments serve as general guidelines as to how to take your life. Harmonizing to these spiritual beliefs, to interrupt one of these commandments is to move amorally. On the most basic degree, it provides an reply to the rhetorical inquiry of what is moral and what is non. In other societies where different faiths prevail, different moral codifications spawn different single criterions. For illustration, in India, Hinduism forbids one to eat a cow ; it is considered a sacred animate being. They believe that the psyches of worlds inhibit the organic structures these animate beings, and to eat a cow would be the same as feeding that individual. ( Encyclopedia ) A Catholic individual on the other manus, would hold no job eating the meat from a cow. This shows how faith plays a instead big function in determining a individual s single ethical motives. Merely as faiths vary, single moral codifications vary every bit good. Many philosophers reject the thoughts expressed by the theory of Cultural Relativism. In Elementss of Moral Philosophy James Rachels attacks cultural relativism with an armory of statements. Rachels contends that if Cultural Relativism were taken earnestly, so there would be serious deductions that would follow. For illustration, if we were to take this theory earnestly, so we could non co ndemn a society for being violently Anti-Semitic. ( 490 ) I feel this is a defect in Rachel s statement. Although the Nazi s Holocaust run may look per se evil and immoral, by the Nazi s concluding it was wholly the antonym. The Nazis really believed that the Jews were a parasitic people, and thought them to be vermin. The Nazis thought that they were making the best possible thing for humanity by destructing the Jews. Because they thought the Jews to be damaging to society, this justified the agencies by which they were extinguishing them. Although I do non hold with this position, the Nazis did. By this logic, who is to judge whether or non it was an immoral action. There is no nonsubjective truth in morality, right and incorrect are lone affairs of sentiment. Rachels goes on to state that if Cultural Relativism were to be taken earnestly, so the thought of moral advancement is called into uncertainty. He says that, To state we have made advancement implies a judgement that contemporary society is better, and that is merely the kind of transcultural judgement that, harmonizing to Cultural Relativism, is impermissible. ( 491 ) I do non hold with this. I feel that moral advancement is an inevitable portion of life, and can non be avoided. As societies become more technologically advanced, there may be an ineluctable alteration in the moral criterions of that society. For illustration, 100s of old ages ago, most civilizations believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that our planet was the centre of the existence. This crude, ethnocentric moral criterion is what people perceived to be the truth. However, as these societies became more advanced, they were able to obtain grounds that the Earth really revolves around the Sun. This al teration in idea can be considered moral advancement, because societies that have adopted this thought began to oppugn their topographic point in the existence. Contrary to old beliefs, many societies that have acknowledged the Sun as the centre of our solar system no longer believe that the full existence revolves around human being. This extremist alteration in thought represented a transmutation in moral criterions, and it in no manner violated the theory of Cultural Relativism. Rachels continues to claim that a cosmopolitan set of values exists, which are necessary for a society to last. These values include caring for babies, stating the truth, and forbiding slaying. He says that because these values are cosmopolitan, the theory of Cultural Relativism is invalid. ( 492 ) I do acknowledge that these values may be common throughout assorted civilizations, but merely because the endurance of a society is dependent on them. These values are inert features of human nature. Because all worlds have self-interest, they will ever make what is necessary to last. The fact that these features of worlds are common throughout assorted civilizations does non intend that the theory of Cultural Relativism does non work. Would Rachels postulate that the value of eating nutrient in order to populate debunks this theory? The values of eating nutrient, imbibing H2O, and even take a breathing to populate, are in the same class of caring for babies in order to guarantee the endu rance of a society. These values are non cosmopolitan moral criterions, but are really biological traits that are cosmopolitan to the full human species. Therefore, the theory of Cultural Relativism is non violated by Rachels s premiss. In The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant advocates the being of cosmopolitan Torahs. Kant stresses that the exclusive characteristic that gives an action moral worth is non the result that is achieved by the action, but the motivation that is behind the action. ( Internet ) Kant calls this responsibility the Categorical Imperative, and he gives a expression that will find whether or non an action is moral. The Categorical Imperative provinces, # 8220 ; Act merely harmonizing to that axiom by which you can at the same clip will that it should go a cosmopolitan law. # 8221 ; ( 563 ) In other words, Kant feels that an action is merely moral if you can will it upon the full universe, make it a cosmopolitan jurisprudence, and still hold society map. I feel that a major defect in Kant s Categorical Imperative is that different positions on a moral issue can give different consequences with his expression. For illustration, if one is faced with a state of affairs whe re they must lie in order to salvage a life, should they lie? Harmonizing to the Categorical Imperative, if one were to do lying a cosmopolitan jurisprudence, so we would populate in a contradictory universe. If we lived in a contradictory universe, so society could non work, therefore lying is immoral. However, when put up to the same trial, non salvaging a life would be immoral as good. Kant s answer to this quandary would be to do an exclusion for this instance. Alternatively proving lying under the categorical jussive mood, one would hold to prove prevarication in order to salvage a life. By leting exclusions like this, one could happen an exclusion for anything. Depending upon which manner you look at an issue, you can about ever warrant an action, and do it an exclusion to Kant s regulation. Because different angles on an issue produce different consequences with Kant s expression, cosmopolitan Torahs can non be at all. The thought of Categorical Imperatives, or cosmopolitan r esponsibilities is an unattainable ideal criterion. After analysing many different point of views, I have come to reason that cosmopolitan moral criterions do non be because it is impossible for everybody everyplace to believe in common thoughts ; the universe s civilizations are far excessively diverse for this. Furthermore, to state that cosmopolitan moral criterions exist would connote that these moral criterions transcend human being, and use to any rational animals that exist anyplace in the existence. Although we do non cognize of any animals to be beyond the boundaries of Earth, I think that it would be chesty to state that any human moral criterions would use to these existences every bit good. In my sentiment, the beliefs of different societies, or excess tellurian existences, can non be said to be right or wrong because this would connote that an nonsubjective ethical truth exists. In world, merely the assorted cultural moral codifications are in being, and hence all moral criterions are really cultural criterions. A hunt fo r a cosmopolitan ethical truth would be a bootless ceaseless traffic circle of statements between different people and different civilizations.