Is Morality Relative or Not?

In the argument of morality is relative or not, Ruth Benedict approach the discussion as a cultural relativist as the opposing view of James Rachels approach the discussion as a moral absolutist. In the end, Rachels provided a much stronger argument that morality is not relative.

Rachels discuss both the ideas of cultural relativism and moral absolutism, and explains the problems of cultural relativism. He points out problems that lie within the ideas of cultural relativism. Rachels uses examples such as infants in society and how if cultural relativism was applied then a society could not support itself. The example begins with the idea if those human infants are forced to depend on others for care and assistance. If society beliefs did not focus on the care of human infants, then the young could not survive in that society (Pojman 411). If the lifestyle of this society chooses to continue this type of living, then this society would not have any other people to replace the old that have died in the group (Pojman 412). The cultural relativist could not just accept this type of lifestyle just because they have different moral standards or moral code. This style of living must be an exception rather than the rule (Pojman 412).

The moral absolutist understands that there is that universal order that dwell within every society. Rachels provides an example that in some way society does not differ from each other as much as we think they do. View a society that does not believe in eating cows because in this society, cows are very sacred. They are a country that is starving, but they choose not to eat the cows because they believe that life after death return into other beings, such as cows, and that cow could be somebody’s grandparent. Our society has the same reasoning with the idea of eating your friend or grandparent is wrong and should not be done no matter how hungry the person is in that society (Pojman 410). This example provides an understanding that this world has a universal connection with all other societies. That moral absolutism has to be the answer because cultural relativism does not accept the idea that these types of universal connections exist in the world. That the cultural relativist believes that societies have their different opinions and cultural beliefs that do not hold them accountable for any actions they do since it is the way of their lifestyle.

The problem with cultural relativism is the fact that no one can possible says that any culture is wrong. Different cultures in different societies have to respect one another since one society’s values are different from another society’s values. At some point of reasoning how respecting different society’s is beneficial, the idea seems to conflict with itself. Rachels gives another example of this situation. During World War II, the Nazi’s leader, Adolph Hitler, created a society based on Anti – Semitic ideals and even went as far as trying to exterminate the entire race of Jews (Pojman 409). The cultural relativist would have to respect his type of view since they just have different cultural beliefs compare to the rest of the world. The cultural relativist would have to respect their view even to the point that they would have to agree that a society tolerant of Jews is no better than Hitler’s Anti – Semitic society (Pojman 409). The moral absolutist understands that at some point there is a wrong and a right in every society. This idea has to exist because if it did not exist, then a society could not support itself for a long period of time. Rachels also provides the example of murder, and how the cultural relativist or the moral absolutist would have to view the idea of murder. The cultural relativist could not disapprove murder in one society because that is there lifestyle. Societies that do not look down on murdering could not support themselves because people would begin to distrust each other. People would become independent and hope that they can survive without the interaction of others so they can live a long life. In the end, this type of lifestyle makes any type of society vulnerable to collapse (Pojman 412). The moral absolutist understands that murder is wrong no matter what the society thinks, and decides to prohibit murder in any society. This idea of making murder wrong no matter what the society thinks can give people trust to each other. This type of society can exist since it has an understanding of murder being wrong (Pojman 412).

The moral absolutist believes that the world has to function with rules and boundaries. That stating every society can do not wrong just because they have different cultural backgrounds or different lifestyles is completely ludicrous. A society can not sustain itself by going against the universal rules that exist within the world. Even if a society never heard of these rules that they still apply because the universal order that exist knows and understand what they could be doing is wrong. Rachels knows and understands that morality is not relative because of the fact that in every society, there is a wrong and then there is a right. Without a wrong or right can lead to a society that will in the end destroy itself cause of their beliefs. Cultural relativism allows everything to be right and not wrong just base on societies who believes that they are correct and are not held accountable for any actions, right or wrong. As the moral absolutism understand that no matter what the society thinks that the universal rule still exists even if what they think is right could actually be wrong.

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy The Quest for Truth. Ed. L. P. Pojman. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.