James Rachels, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism1

To many thinkers, this observation – "Different 4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics-that is,
cultures have different moral codes" – has seemed to there are no moral truths that hold for all
be the key to understanding morality. The idea of peoples at all times.
universal truth in ethics, they say, is a myth. The 5. The moral code of a society determines what is
customs of different societies are all that exist. These right within that society; that is, if the moral code
customs cannot be said to be "correct" or "incorrect," of a society says that a certain action is right,
for that implies we have an independent standard of then that action is right, at least within that
right and wrong by which they may be judged. But society.
there is no such independent standard; every 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the
standard is culture-bound. The great pioneering conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an
sociologist William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, attitude of tolerance toward the practices of
put the point like this: other cultures.
The "right" way is the way which the ancestors Although it may seem that these six propositions
used and which has been handed down. The tradition go naturally together, they are independent of one
is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification
by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways.
another, in the sense that some of them might be true
It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and even if others are false. In what follows, we will try
brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is to identify what is correct in Cultural Relativism, but
right. This is because they are traditional, and we will also be concerned to expose what is mistaken
therefore contain in themselves the authority of the about it.
ancestral ghosts. When we come to the folkways we
are at the end of our analysis.
Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature
This line of thought has probably persuaded of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible.
more people to be skeptical about ethics than any However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated
other single thing. Cultural Relativism, as it has been by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we
called, challenges our ordinary belief in the analyze Cultural Relativism we find that it is not so
objectivity and universality of moral truth. It says, in plausible as it first appears to be.
effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in The first thing we need to notice is that at the
ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and heart of Cultural Relativism there is a certain form of
nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special argument. The strategy used by cultural relativists is
status; it is merely one among many. to argue from facts about the differences between
As we shall see, this basic idea is really a cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of
compound of several different thoughts. It is morality. Thus we are invited to accept this reasoning:
important to separate the various elements of the (1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the
theory because, on analysis, some parts of the theory dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was
turn out to be correct, whereas others seem to be right to eat the dead.
mistaken. As a beginning, we may distinguish the (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither
following claims, all of which have been made by objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
cultural relativists: merely a matter of opinion, which varies from
1. Different societies have different moral codes. culture to culture.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used Or, alternatively:
to judge one societal code better than another. (1) The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide,
3. The moral code of our own society has no special whereas Americans believe infanticide is
status; it is merely one among many. immoral.

1 James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” in Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4 th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc., 2003), accessed October 24, 2016, https://db.oakengate.org/media/textbooks/ElementsOfMoralPhilosophy.pdf

 (2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from
right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a the mere fact that people disagree about it.
matter of opinion, which varies from culture to It is important to understand the nature of the
culture. point that is being made here. We are not saying
Clearly, these arguments are variations of one (not yet, anyway) that the conclusion of the argument
fundamental idea. They are both special cases of a is false. Insofar as anything being said here is
more general argument, which says: concerned, it is still an open question whether the
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes. conclusion is true. We are making a purely logical
(2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in point and saying that the conclusion does not follow
morality. Right and wrong are only matters from the premise. This is important, because in order
of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to to determine whether the conclusion is true, we need
culture. arguments in its support. Cultural Relativism proposes
We may call this the Cultural Differences this argument, but unfortunate the argument turns out
Argument. To many people, it is very persuasive. But to be fallacious. So it proves nothing.
from a logical point of view, is it a sound argument? Even if the Cultural Differences Argument is
It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion invalid, Cultural Relativism might still be true. What
does not really follow from the premise - that is, even would it be like if it were true?
if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be In the passage quoted above, William Graham
false. The premise concerns what people believe; in Sumner summarizes the essence of cultural Relativism.
some societies, people believe one thing; in other He says that there is no measure of right and wrong
societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, other than the standards of one’s society: "The notion
however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of
is that this sort of conclusion does not follow logically independent origin, and brought to test them. In the
from this sort of premise. folkways, whatever is, is right."
Consider again the example of the Greeks and Suppose we took this seriously. What would be
Callatians. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat some of the consequences?
the dead; the Callatians believed it was right. Does 1. We could no longer say that the customs of
it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that other societies are morality inferior to our own. This, of
there is no objective truth in the matter? No, it does course, is one of the main points stressed by Cultural
not follow; for it could be that the practice was Relativism. We would have to stop condemning other
objectively right (or wrong) and that one or the other societies merely because they are "different." So
of them was simply mistaken. long as we concentrate on certain examples, such as
To make the point clearer, consider a very the funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians,
different matter. In some societies, people believe this may seem to be a sophisticated, enlightened
the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own, attitude.
people believe the earth is (roughly) spherical. Does However, we would also be stopped from
it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that criticizing other, less benign practices. Suppose a
there is no "objective truth" in geography? Of course society waged war on its neighbors for the purpose
not; we would never draw such a conclusion because of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently
we realize that, in their beliefs about the world, the anti-Semitic and its leaders set out to destroy the
members of some societies might simply be wrong. Jews. Cultural Relativism would preclude us from
There is no reason to think that if the world is round saying that either of these practices was wrong. We
everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason would not even be able to say that a society tolerant
to think that if there is moral truth everyone must of Jews is better than the anti-Semitic society, for that
know it. The fundamental mistake in the Cultural would imply some sort of transcultural standard of
Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a comparison. The failure to condemn these practices
does not seem “enlightened”; on the contrary slavery
and anti-Semitism seem wrong wherever they occur. implies a judgment that present-day society is better,
Nevertheless, if we took Cultural Relativism seriously, and that is just the sort of transcultural judgment that,
we would have to admit that these social practices according to Cultural Relativism, is impermissible.
also are immune from criticism. Our idea of social reform will also have to be
2. We could decide whether actions are right or reconsidered. A reformer such as Martin Luther King,
wrong just by consullting the standards of our society. Jr., seeks to change his society for the better. Within
Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for the constraints imposed by Cultural Relativism, there
determining what is right and what is wrong: all one is one way this might be done. If a society is not living
has to do is ask whether the action is in accordance up to its own ideals, the reformer may be regarded
with the code of one's society. Suppose a resident of as acting for the best: the ideals of the society are
South Africa is wondering whether his country's policy the standard by which we judge his or her proposals
of apartheid – rigid racial segregation – is morally as worthwhile. But the "reformer" may not challenge
correct. All he has to do is ask whether this policy the ideals themselves, for those ideals are by
conforms to his society's moral code. If it does, there definition correct. According to Cultural Relativism,
is nothing to worry about, at least from a moral point then, the idea of social reform makes sense only in
of view. this very limited way...
This implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing These three consequences of Cultural Relativism
because few of us think that our society's code is have led many thinkers to reject it as implausible on
perfect we can think of ways it might be improved. its face. It does make sense, they say, to condemn
Yet Cultural Relativism would not only forbid us from some practices, such as slavery and anti-Semitism,
criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop wherever they occur. It makes sense to think that our
us from criticizing our own. After all, if right and own society has made some moral progress, while
wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our admitting that it is still imperfect and in need of
own culture just as much as for others. reform. Because Cultural Relativism says that these
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. judgments make no sense, the argument goes, it
Usually, we think that at least some changes in our cannot be right.
society have been for the better. (Some, of course, At the outset, I said that we were going to
may have been changes for the worse.) Consider this identify both what is right and what is wrong in
example: Throughout most of Western history the Cultural Relativism. Thus far I have mentioned only its
place of women in society was very narrowly mistakes: I have said that it rests on an invalid
circumscribed. They could not own property; they argument, that it has consequences that make it
could not vote or hold political office; with a few implausible on its face, and that the extent of cultural
exceptions, they were not permitted to have paying disagreement is far less than it implies. This all adds
jobs; and generally they were under the almost up to a pretty thorough repudiation of the theory.
absolute control of their husbands. Recently much of Nevertheless, it is still a very appealing idea, and the
this has changed, and most people think of it as reader may have the feeling that all this is a little
progress. unfair. The theory must have something going for it,
If Cultural Relativism is correct, can we or else why has it been so influential? In fact, I think
legitimately think of this as progress? Progress means there is something right about Cultural Relativism,
replacing a way of doing things with a better way. and now I want to say what that is. There are two
But by what standard do we judge the new ways as lessons we should learn from the theory, even if we
better? If the old ways were in accordance with the ultimately reject it.
social standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism 1. Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly,
would say it is a mistake to judge them by the about the danger of assuming that all our
standards of a different time. Eighteenth-century preferences are based on some absolute rational
society was, in effect, a different society from the one standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our
we have now. To say that we have made progress practices are merely peculiar to our society, and it is
easy to lose sight of that fact. In reminding us of it, about homosexuality; that gay people are just
the theory does a service. people, like anyone else, who happen, through no
Funerary practices are one example. The choice of their own, to be attracted to others of the
Callatians, accordi.ng to Herodotus, were "men who same sex. But because we feel so strongly about the
eat their fathers" - a shocking idea, to us at least. But matter, we may find it hard to take this seriously.
eating the flesh of the dead could be understood as Even after we listen to the arguments, we may still
a sign of respect. It could be taken as a symbolic act have the unshakable feeling that homosexuals must,
that says: We wish this person's spirit to dwell within somehow, be an unsavory lot.
us. Perhaps this was the understanding of the 3. Cultural Relativism, by stressing that our
Callatians. On such a way of thinking, burying the moral views can reflect the prejudices of our society,
dead could be seen as an act of rejection, and provides an antidote for this kind of dogmatism.
burning the corpse as positively scornful. If this is hard When he tells the story of the Greeks and Callatians.
to imagine, then we may need to have our Herodotus adds:
imaginations stretched. Of course we may feel a For if anyone, no matter who, were given the
visceral repugnance at the idea of eating human opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations
flesh in any circumstances. But what of it? This of the world the set of beliefs which he thought best,
repugnance may be, as the relativists say, only a he would inevitably, after careful consideration of
their relative merits, choose that of his own country.
matter of what is customary in our particular society.
Everyone without exception believes his own native
There are many other matters that we tend to
customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be
think of in terms of objective right and wrong, but the best.
that are really nothing more than social conventions. Realizing this can result in our having more open
Should women cover their breasts? A publicly minds. We can come to understand that our feelings
exposed breast is scandalous in our society, whereas are not necessarily perceptions of the truth-they may
in other cultures it is unremarkable. Objectively be nothing more than the result of cultural
speaking, it is neither right nor wrong-there is no conditioning. Thus when we hear it suggested that
objective reason why either custom is better. Cultural some element of our social code ts not really the best
Relativism begins with the valuable insight that many and we find ourselves instinctively resisting the
of our practices are like this-they are only cultural suggestion, we might stop and remember this. Then
products. Then it goes wrong by concluding that, we may be more open to discovering the truth,
because some practices are like this, all must be. whatever that might be.
2. The second lesson has to do with keeping an We can understand the appeal of Cultural
open mind. In the course of growing up, each of us Relativism, then, even though the theory has serious
has acquired some strong feelings: we have learned shortcomings. It is an attractive theory because it is
to think of some types of conduct as acceptable, and based on a genuine insight - that many of the
others we have learned to regard as simply practices and attitudes we think so natural are really
unacceptable. Occasionally, we may find those only cultural products. Moreover, keeping this insight
feelings challenged. We may encounter someone firmly in view is important if we want to avoid
who claims that our feelings are mistaken. For arrogance and have open minds. These are
example, we may have been taught that important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can
homosexuality is immoral, and we may feel quite accept these points without going on to accept the
uncomfortable around gay people and see them as whole theory.
alien and "different." Now someone suggests that this
may be a mere prejudice; that there is nothing evil