FREE ESSAY ON CULTURAL RELATIVISM: IS TRUTH DEFINED BY OUR CULTURE OR OUR CULTURE BY TRUTH?

CULTURAL RELATIVISM: IS TRUTH DEFINED BY OUR CULTURE OR OUR CULTURE BY TRUTH?

In his article "Cultural relativism and cultural values", Melville Herkovits defines the
principle of cultural relativism as "judgements are based on experience, and experience
is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation" (26). This is the
basic premise of cultural relativism, that beliefs, values, and morals are all based on
one's culture. Therefore, since morality is based on society and different societies have
different views of right and wrong, there can be no moral absolutes. Since there are no
absolutes, under this view of cultural relativism all moral views determined by one's
culture are deemed true whether they conflict or not. 
Upon first glance, relativism seems like a very appropriate concept of morality in the
world. It is clear to see that there are differences of what is acceptable and
unacceptable in different societies across the world. Growing up in Western culture I
have grown a fondness for meat, especially steak. It is a momentous occasion when I can
go out or fix a nice, juicy steak for a meal, the bigger the better. This is not a
problem in my culture, save those few health conscience people who say I will die by
heart disease, but I don't consider them part of my society anyway. However, if I were
raised in an eastern, Hindu, culture these dietary practices would be considered wrong.
My act of eating cow would be considered a moral atrocity. 
From examples like these and many others around the world we can see a good case for
different cultures having different moral views, but is that really the case? I believe
that at a surface level cultural relativism holds some merit, however if we look deeper
into the issue we can find a flawed, and inaccurate theory for the way that the world
should work. 
Some of the biggest arguments given in defense of cultural relativism are the many
different practices of different cultures from around the world. Melville J. Herskovits
gives examples of a West African culture of Dahomey, which practice polygamy. He also
states different religious traditions of different cultures such as African societies
that incorporate possession of an individual by a god to be the supreme religious
experience. In an exert from his book Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, Louis P.
Pojman describes an Eskimo culture that, "allow their elderly to die by starvation,"
(33). These are all strong examples, but do they actually support the idea that these
cultures have different moral values? 
In the examples given by Herskovits about religious traditions being different this is
true, there are various religious practices in various cultures that have dissimilar
habits. These however are religious practices and not moral concepts. One church chooses
to worship their god using a full orchestra and robed choir, while another chooses to
simply have a piano and a singer. Do these churches have different moral principles, or
are they merely choosing different expressions of worship?
With Pojman's example of the practice of a harsh euthanasia by the Eskimos, he goes
further to explain that it is not the moral principle that causes the Eskimos to leave
their elderly to starve, but the harsh environment. In the harsh environment of the
arctic it is not considered a "good" action, but a necessary one in order for the
survival of the whole tribe. Were the tribes to live in a tropical or temperate
environment where food is not so scarce this brand of euthanasia would not be practiced.

If we also look closer into the example given in the beginning of this paper we can see
that the immorality of eating beef is not based on moral principles, but different
beliefs. The example of a Hindu culture, (taken from a very intelligent professor of
mine) being outraged at the Western practice of eating cow meat is based on the religious
belief that dead relatives are reincarnated into animals such as cows. Now this is not a
belief held by other Western religions, therefore the consumption of beef is freely
practiced. However, what the two cultures do share is that it is immoral to eat
relatives. As we can see, the two cultures have the same underlying moral principles,
they simply differ on their beliefs. This can also be seen in the polygamous society of
the Dahomeans. Although they may have a contradictory practice of marriage than those in
Western culture they still hold on to the moral principle that it is wrong to have sexual
relations with someone other than your spouse. Even though, they may differ on a Western
concept of marriage the underlying principle of the sanctity of marriage is still held
along with the need of a family structure. 
Another problem with cultural relativism is that it throws out the idea that there are
moral absolutes. It holds that what is morally right and wrong is dependent on and
determined by one's own culture. This is, in a sense, a utilitarian view of morality not
being fixed, but a changing concept. In utilitarianism right and wrong is based on what
will give the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain based on the
situation. Since this can change from group to group and situation to situation there is
no all-encompassing right or wrong action. In the same way cultural relativism claims
that there can be no universal laws that must be held over all cultures. 
This idea, however seems to be the very thing that cultural relativism is trying to
create. For if there is truly to be no universal law of right or wrong and it is all to
be determined by separate cultures than it must be acceptable for certain cultures to
have universal laws. Otherwise, cultural relativism is doing the very thing it is trying
to stop which is the judgment of other cultures. 
It is virtually impossible for the cultural relativist to make the claim that there are
no moral absolutes and that all morality is to be determined by one's own culture without
willing that his very own claim of relativism be held as universal law. This however,
negates the first claim that there is no universal law and then the cultural relativist
has no claim at all. In order for the cultural relativist's argument to have any validity
he must withdraw his claim of no moral absolutes. The cultural relativist knows that in
doing this he allows the concept of standard moral principles that all societies must
adhere to which thus weakens his claims. 
Even in it's objectives cultural relativism is incorrect. When looked upon as a whole,
cultural relativism's main objective is to promote tolerance. Tolerance is the idea that
one must be accepting of another person's beliefs, values, principles even if they stand
in conflict of one's own. The idea of tolerance is a nice one. One of a world without
fighting or conflict, however when thought out in its entirety relativism fails to
achieve this goal.
If all societies' beliefs are to be deemed right by cultural relativism, what if a
society is bent on taking over other societies? Let's say that Switzerland is tired of
being the neutral, everybody's friend country. Now they're hell bent on taking over
Europe and the rest of the world eventually. Under cultural relativism this would be no
problem because it is what that culture deems as right, but does this promote tolerance?
What if a group of Mexican-Americans in Kansas City decided they don't want to have
anything to do with the Japanese-Americans so they bar them from all Mexican-American run
businesses? The Mexican-American culture believes this is the right thing to do, but this
doesn't promote acceptance of other cultures it simply fuels more hatred by saying that
it's okay as long as that's how your culture feels. 
As has been pointed out cultural relativism seems correct at first glance, but once it is
fully examined and brought to its final conclusion we can see that it is not valid. Many
examples given for cultural relativism around the world are simply cases of different
practices and preferences of cultures and not morals. Some can even be attributed to a
necessity due to the situation, but not because they believe it is morally right and
others can be clarified as contrasting beliefs, but not morality. 
In conclusion, I believe that cultural relativism is based off of ethnocentrism, which is
the main view it tries to eradicate. Who's to say that cultural relativism is not another
Western view to be used to judge cultures that do not have the same practice? If we
clearly define cultural relativism we can see that it is another idea that can be used to
determine if a culture is good or bad. For if a culture is accepting of all other beliefs
than it is following cultural relativism and it is therefore good. However, if a culture
believes in only it's beliefs and no one else's it does not fit the ideas of relativism
and must be determined as bad or an "uncivilized" culture. Cultural relativism in its
purest form is well thought out idea for the world, however, by throwing out moral
absolutes and determining everyone as right it simply is not a valid concept.
Bibliography
Herskovits, Melville J. "Cultural Relativism and Values," Taking Sides, Clashing views 
on controversial moral issues. Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, Taking Sides, Clashing views 
on controversial moral issues. Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1998.