James Rachels’ evaluation of cultural relativism:
Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling assessment of Cultural
Relativism.
The Cultural Differences Argument
Rachels explained that cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts about the differences
between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality.
Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like these:
The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians (an Indian Tribe)
believed it was right to eat the dead. Therefore, eating dead is neither objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe infanticide is immoral.
Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachels call these cultural differences argument. It is nonetheless unsound because its conclusion
does not follow from its premise.
Against cultural differences argument, this counter-argument could be submitted:
People in some societies (e.g. Primitive Tribes) believe that the Earth is flat, whereas Europeans
hold that truth that the Earth is spherical. This argument is obviously unsound because some
societies might simply be wrong in their beliefs
Cultural Relativism goes wrong in drawing a conclusion about an issue from the mere fact that
people disagree about it.
The Disagreements among Cultures
There are many factors, Rachel further explains, which work together to produce the customs of
a society. Since the difference in customs may be because of some other aspects of social life,
then it’s wrong to conclude that there is a disagreement about values and morality just because
customs differ. Therefore, there may be less ethical disagreements that there appears to be (1997,
p. 27).
The Case of Eskimos and Callatians
In sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing normal infants, especially
girls. This makes them appear to possess significantly different values from ours.
It is not that Eskimos have less affection for their children or less respect for human life. An
Eskimo will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But they live in a harsh environment
where food is in short supply that “life is hard, and the margin of safety is small” (1999, p. 28).
In Eskimo’s very special case, Infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic measures are
sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
The Bad Consequences of Cultural relativism
If we took cultural relativism seriously, we would be necessitated to deal with the following
corollaries enumerated by Rachels (1999, pp.25-27)
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting standards of our
society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called to doubt.
ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOUR
Because culture has an impact on morality, people from different cultures appear to have
seemingly, but not essentially different sets of ethics. This is particularly apparent in ethics of
groups of people from the Eastern or Asian Culture as compared to those from Western culture.
The Difference Between Western and Eastern Ethics :
WESTERN ETHICS EASTERN ETHICS
FOCUS Finding truth Protocol and respect
BASIS Rational thought Religious teachings
EMPHASIS Logic, cause and effect Respect towards family
ROOTS IN Athens, Rome and Judeo- Hinduism, Buddhism,
Christianity Confucianism and Taoism
APPROACH Rational Holistic and Cultural
CONFLICT AND Good must triumph over evil Good and bad, light and dark, all
HARMONY exist in equilibrium
Filipino Moral Character: Strength and Weakness
Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics, centers on ideally having
a ‘smooth interpersonal relationship’ (SIR) with others. The definition of SIR in Philippine
culture is principally supported by and anchored on at least six basic Filipino values.
Six Basic Filipino Values :
1. Pakikisama is having and maintaining good public relation.
2. Hiya is described as a feeling of lowliness, shame or embarrassment, and inhibition of shyness
which is experienced as somewhat distressing.
3. Amor propio has been characterized as the high degree of sensitivity that makes a person
intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an easily wounded pride.
4. Utang na loob is likewise a fundamental aspects of upholding group harmony and
relationships that demand the balancing of obligation and depts.
5. Filipino hospitality refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be courteous and
entertaining to their guest.
6. Respects for Elders. Filipinos are not only respectful to elders, but also have unique ways of
expressing this respect.
These Filipino social values are important to maintain harmony in Filipino relationships in social
institutions such as family, school and community.
Universal Values
By Universal values, we mean those values generally shared by cultures. The existence of the so-
called universal values is a strong proof that cultural relativism is wrong. If certain values exist
both in Western and Eastern cultures (including Filipino culture) despite the distance, then
cultural relativism’s claim that culture’s moralities radically differ from each other is mistaken.
Going back to the contention that Eskimos are also protective of their children, Rachel submits
the following sound argument (1999, p.29) Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they
are not given extensive care for a period of years. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young,
the young would not survive and the older members of the group would not be replaced. After a
while, the group would die out. Therefore, any cultural group that continues to exist must care
for its young infants that are not cared for must be the exceptions rather than the rule.
The same argument could be used to reasonably show that other values must be generally shared
by many cultures. Given value on 1) truth telling, for instance is indispensable in the existence of
a society, for without it there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone communicates
with anyone.
Rachels also mentions of the case of 2) valuing or respecting life which necessitates the
prohibition of murder. In a society where no one thought there was anything wrong with killing
at will, everyone would have to be constantly on guard.
