After reading both Bendict’s and Rachels’ opinions on cultural relativism, I can say that I agree and with some aspects of both of their arguments. I actually think that Benedict and Rachels might agree more than what I expected. Rachels concedes that cultures do have different practices that alter views of what is morally right and morally wrong but still believes that there is objective morality. Benedict, similarly, believes in cultural relativism and that what is right and wrong to specific cultures will be based on what is considered normal and abnormal in that culture, but she never explicitly states that objective morality doesn’t exist; she, like Rachels, could believe that one or many of these cultures is “wrong” in their beliefs. One problem I do have with Rachels’ argument is that while he does state that objective morality does exist, he doesn’t back up this claim enough. I believe he only gives on example – excision – that he can defend as “objectively” wrong even though in another culture it is the norm. Somewhat paradoxically, however, Rachels uses what would be considered the “normal” American viewpoint on this issue to defend why this issue is “objectively” immoral. Of course, I agree with his reasoning that this practice is wrong, but perhaps that is only because my morals are based and were created in the same culture as his.
I think the major difference between the two articles is the idea from Benedict that normal and abnormal in a society equates to moral and immoral. I don’t think Rachels agrees with this and that is what he is arguing against. I personally side with Rachels and believe there are objective moral truths and societal laws should not be the basis of morality because, like was said in class, then we could never change and make progress. If laws are moral, why or how could we change them? We couldn’t critique ourselves at all.
I agree with your post. The one thing the I had the biggest problem with in Rachel’s argument was that he didn’t back up the claim that there is a objective morality. Because of this, I feel that he just said it to put make the statement and with backing of it, it kind of made it pointless to me. I think that culture does have a big impact on your views on what’s moral or not.
While Rachels didn’t really support his claim for object moral truths, I don’t think he needs to. His main purpose was to argue that societies having different moral values doesn’t mean that there can’t be objective moral values. Also he wanted to point out some of the problems with cultural relativism.
Experience our IPTV Service and don’t miss any of the amazing moments. More than 30,000+ channels, movies, series, for all age groups. Say goodbye to traditional TV and embrace the future today! (4k, FHD, HD) : OTTOCEAN IPTV
Say goodbye to buffering and freezing with the CatchOnTV IPTV Pack! Watch in stunning 4K quality on any device, anytime, from anywhere in the world : CatchOnTV IPTV