Cultural Relativism

The following is my paper for lesson 4 in my ethics course. It took forever to write because I have not written an essay or a paper bigger than a page in over two years. I chose to prove that cultural relativism should not be used to make ethical choices or, rather, that it is not a valid theory. To learn more about it, take a look at the works cited section. Particularly, visit Wikipedia.org. They provided some of the best information looking at it from different points of view (philosophical vs. an anthropological). Cultural relativism should not be confused with MORAL relativism. They are two different subject matters.

On another note, there is much I could expand on, but I have chosen not to due to page requirements. Each topic touched on as a myriad of subtopics to keep a person perplexed (as well as entertained) as to the value of Cultural Relativism.

Disclaimer: The following subject matter discussed is of a serious adult subject. You have been warned.

–

Cultural Relativism is defined as the ethical truth that is relative to a particular culture. In other words, right and wrong is defined by a culture and cannot be judged as right or wrong by a completely different culture. However, is it truly correct for us to turn a blind eye because it is of another culture and we simply cannot understand it? As Tim Holt of Philosophy of Religion says, “Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral status of other cultures in cases where doing so seems to be inappropriate, but it also renders us powerless to judge the moral status of other cultures in cases where doing so seems to be necessary (2006).” While cultural relativism might be good to teach one respect for other cultures and societies, people should still look further to determine the source of a practice and then decide if it is truly respectable for modern times.

Infanticide is a wide spread tradition among many of the world’s older cultures. Female infanticide was –and in some cases—still widely practiced. Taking a look into the Chinese culture, female infanticide was widely popular as a form of population control and the fact that it was preferred to have a first child as a son, since it was the son’s responsibility to carry on the family name. Concerning cultural relativism, such a practice should be overlooked. But should it really be dismissed?

In the past—say pre 19^th century—it was not uncommon for such a thing to happen anywhere. “Although popularly perceived as poor, ignorant, unmarried girls concealing their pregnancies and then killing their infants at birth in order to hide their shame, infanticide was more often caused by financial desperation (Tiscali, 2006).” While there are still poor individuals out there, should infanticide still be practiced? Especially in 1^st world powers? With the growth of economies, such a thing should no longer be overlooked. With the exception of population growth, the killing of a child for the sake of not wanting it after its been born should prove to be inappropriate.

In the case of Fauziya Kassindja, she came to the United States, seeking asylum because of her culture’s practice of excision. In the Elements of Moral Philosophy, Rachels describes excision as “…a permanently disfiguring procedure that is sometimes called ‘female circumcision,’ although it bears little resemblance to the Jewish practice (page 26).” Male circumcision has proven to be beneficial. It helps cut down on the possibility of contracting diseases. It is therefore medically approved. How is female circumcision medically beneficial?

According to Wikipedia, it isn’t (2006). It is more of a religious practice to keep the female tame in the case of marriage. It is also to dissuade the desire to masturbate. Supposedly, it also enhances male pleasure. While such a practice is banned from Western Cultures, it is still a widely practiced in many African and Muslim cultures. For Kassindja, she saw the US as a sanctuary and a place that would protect her rights as not only a person, but as a woman. After being rejected for asylum initially, she was granted it. This opened doors to a new outlook on cultural practices. “Not only can those individuals who flee their countries of origin seek refuge from political, ethnic and religious persecution–because of Ms. Kassindja’s case, asylum can be granted to offer protection from persecution that is gender-based… (The Tahirih Justice Center, 2003).”

Cultural relativism fails to recognize universal rights of a human. In 1948, the United Nations prepared a doctrine citing what should be universal truths for all humans no matter cultural or religious perspective (Wikipedia, 2006). The most important rights are the following: the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to an education; the right to participate fully in cultural life; freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. If we were to continue to practice the concept of cultural relativism, how many of these universal rights would thus be sacrificed or ignored?

In conclusion, cultural relativism fails to recognize that there are cross-cultural similarities. It doesn’t explore the reason behind a practice. It does not help determine if a practice from another cultural should be condemned. Instead, it encourages ignorance and for those of us of a different cultural to turn a blind eye.

Works Cited

Holt, Tim. Cultural Relativism. Accessed February 18, 2006. Copyrighted 2006. WWW:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/culturalrelativism.html

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Boston, Ken King, 2003.

The Tahirih Justice Center. Fauziya Kassindja’s Story. Accessed February 18, 2006.
Copyrighted 2003. WWW: http://www.tahirih.org/about/history2.html

Tiscali Reference. Accessed February 18, 2006. Copyrighted 2006. WWW:
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012028.html

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 18, 2006. WWW:
http://en.wikipedia.org

—
On the flipside, we were suppose to write a 2-3 paragraph rebuttle. Do note that I don’t agree with everything in my rebuttle. I’m pretty sure the instructor wants to insure that her students understands all sides of the theory of Cultural Relativism.

In a world of diversity, it is necessary to be tolerant of other cultures. That is, it is necessary to show respect for their peculiarities or at least those things we find peculiar compared to our own culture. Cultural relativism allows us to not judge others. It gives us a freedom to not have to care about someone of another culture. We can simply dismiss or turn a blind eye to their strange practices, even a blind eye to some of the cruel practices that they might do.

Individuals seeking asylum should all be turned away. As it is, we need to think about our own culture and shouldn’t be required to compensate for outside immigrants. They were born in that society so they should be required to uphold what the culture requires of them. As Herodotus said, “Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.”