The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

The beginning of this article, though somewhat disturbing to read, made a lot of sense to me. The concept that "right and wrong differ from culture to culture" makes perfect sense, and the idea that cultures can not be compared based on these ideals seems pretty straightforward to me. When the author spoke of the Eskimos who let their infants and elderly die and share wives, it was difficult to comprehend; I have always though that there is a universal respect for life, worldwide. But I immediately looked at myself and realized that I am pro-Choice, which some would consider to be a blatant disregard for human life. I became thoroughly confused; the article is right, the idea of universal truth in ethics is nothing be a myth. There can be no independent standard because "every standard is culture-bound." And again, I was back to agreeing with the article; "right" = tradition. Cultural Relativism began to seem like common sense; "There is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many." I can see how this conclusion came to be; no matter where one lives, everyone seems to think that they are better than everyone else, even in the smallest of ways. It is this attitude, in my opinion, that makes Cultural Relativism plausible, even the claims made by cultural relativists make sense. However, when I read the argument against Cultural Relativism, I saw the 'truth' in it as well. It a nothing more than a subjective theory, because "the fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the mere fact that people disagree about it." Basically, we can not make a subjective idea objective, and this point is probable; one can not make someone else believe anything, especially when it comes to emotions and other debatable opinions. However, if something is a proven fact, there usually is no point in arguing it, and in this case, different cultures have different beliefs and opinions, but the fact is that one is not better or "right" and another worse or "wrong." But once the author, after having convinced me of Cultural Relativism, began to battle back against these ideas, I was lost. The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously undoubtedly has a point; "it makes sense to think that our own society has made some moral progress, while admitting that it is still imperfect and in need of reform. Because Cultural Relativism says that these judgements make no sense, the argument goes, it cannot be right." In each society, many factors work together in order to produce customs and values within that community. And while it is true that all cultures are different (the source from with Cultural Relativism streams) they may not be as different as they appear. It is in the belief systems that cultures differ, not their values. At the beginning of the section titled All Cultures have some Values in Common, I was on board, but as it progressed,  I became very confused once again. If everyone has values that are "more or less universal," how can the customs be so drastically different? Yes, location may make a difference, but how did the belief systems become so removed from one another? Needless to say, this article made me think and consider the world we live in today. How can anyone be "right" with this thought process? Is there anything that is "right," is there any "truth" in the world? It is clear why there are so many disagreements around the world, from politics to religion, but if we all have the same value roots, why do we fight? I truly and completely confused thanks to this article and will forever be questioning myself and others when it is time to make a decision. I think I might just buy my own island and live out my days away from everyone and all of the fighting and disagreements in the world; but that wouldn't help this new internal conflict, now would it?