Cultural Relativism: Benedict vs. Rachels on Morality
Cultural Relativism: Benedict vs. Rachels
Relativism is a concept that defines that there is no absolute truth in morality—only the truth of those whose culture happens to believe to be appropriate according to their standards. Strictly speaking, morality depends on the individual’s culture within the society they live in. Two individuals who offer theories on these diverse cultures are Ruth Benedict and James Rachels. Ruth Benedict argues for cultural relativism, while Rachels argues against it. Although both arguments may show some similarities, Rachels’ approach differs from Benedict’s claim. Nevertheless, we will discuss their viewpoints on relativism.
Benedict’s Argument for Cultural Relativism
Benedict offers an argument for the idea of moral relativism. According to Benedict, morality is based on what is socially approved within a society. Furthermore, what is considered an oddity to one culture could be a norm to another, and vice versa. As an example, she mentions the Kwakiutl Indian tribe, in which they follow a tradition: if someone in the tribe has lost a relative or family member, the individual can kill another individual. Nevertheless, she believed this tribal behavior is not wrong since it is considered a norm in their society. There are two theses that also support her claim: the diversity thesis and the dependency thesis. Benedict’s diversity thesis states that moral rules differ between cultures. As for her dependency thesis, an individual’s acts may be right or wrong depending on the nature of the society. A good example would be rules and actions between North Korea and the US. In Benedict’s perspective, morality is seen in the context of history, tradition, and goals of the society.
Rachels’ Critique of Cultural Relativism
In contrast, James Rachels disagrees with Benedict’s claim of cultural relativism. Rachels argues, using the example of the Eskimos, who believed there is nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is unethical. Furthermore, he believed cultural relativism supports the idea that since there are different opinions on the morality of infanticide, there is no objective truth about these moral actions. Rachels interprets cultural relativism as meaning there is no objective truth—they are simply a matter of opinion that differs from culture to culture. Rachels uses another example, stating that some people believed our world is round while others thought it was flat. He then argues that cultural relativism would continue to support the idea that there is no right answer to their claims about whether the earth is round or flat.
Implications of Cultural Relativism According to Rachels
Rachels addresses the implications of taking cultural relativism seriously by giving several conclusions. The first conclusion is that we, as a cultural group, would not be able to critique other cultural groups. The second conclusion is that one would be able to determine if something is right or wrong simply by consulting the standards of one’s society, which relates back to the first conclusion: nothing can be deemed morally wrong by any standards. The third conclusion is that the idea of moral progress would be called into question; a culture could not evolve to become even more moral than it once was—as, again, they could never be considered morally wrong by another culture in the first place.
Conclusion
There are many points that have been established between these two individuals’ arguments. However, both sides are either correct or incorrect. I believe cultural relativism does exist but not to the extent of what Benedict might’ve predicted or to the extent of Rachels’ belief in its non-existence. I don’t think it is wise to believe there is no objective truth when it comes to understanding morality. There must be some things that are a universal truth, yet Rachels denies its existence entirely. Nevertheless, I am neutral between these two individuals’ arguments.
There were similarities and differences between Benedict’s and Rachels’ arguments. Not to mention, all examples were given in order to establish their claims on what they believed in. Despite all the points they have provided in their arguments, they have given a good debate on the nature of cultural relativism.