In this class we have read many articles about court cases in which the defendant used a cultural defense. This means that they did not deny committing the criminal act of which they are accused, but rather that they were justified in doing so because of their cultural traditions and beliefs. While it is easy to say that more heinous crimes like female genital mutilation or honor killings cannot be excused for any reason, including culture, the issue becomes much murkier in cases like that of Mohammad Kargar, who was convicted of gross sexual assault for kissing his infant son’s penis as an expression of parental affection (State of Maine v. Kargar, pp. 82-83). While I believe that it is important to uphold the law as fairly and as uniformly as possible, there are times when it is appropriate for a cultural defense to be considered during conviction or sentencing. These times are generally for cases where the “victim” of the crime is not actually harmed in any meaningful way, such as in Kargar’s case. However, there are more extreme cases where the victim was harmed, or even killed, in which a cultural defense is appropriate to consider if only to understand the defendant’s motivation for committing the crime. This is …show more content…
Ruth Benedict describes cultural relativism as the belief that what is abnormal in one society may be considered normal in another, and vice versa, as well as that a person’s ethics and behaviors are shaped by the culture in which they grew up (Benedict, p. 22). By this logic, no culture is morally superior to another, and none are wrong. This idea is innocent enough when debating between sweet and unsweet tea, but it becomes more difficult to defend when talking about the custom of mothers in Japan killing their children while committing suicide, because the children are viewed as an extension of the
Ethical Relativism is, in fact, common goals, morals, values, traditions and ethics that cultures, small groups or societies share. Some different societies condemn individuals do to being involve in abortions, genocide, racism, sexism, torture or suicide (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J & Meyer, pp.45-46, Summer 1992). In certain tribes suicide, it is considered noble if one takes their life. In the
Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.
Ruth Benedict was an American anthropologist and folklorist who greatly influenced philosophy through her studies of isolated societies. Her theory of cultural relativism has met both great acclaim and vehement criticism as an explanation of morality and behavior. Stepping away from the stance of ethical absolutism she calls us to take a different and perhaps harrowing approach, examining morals as socially approved customs rather than immovable and eternal cornerstones of all cultures. I argue that Benedict, through her examination of indigenous cultures, provides a sound argument for the relativity of morality – and the consequent lack of a universal moral standard to which all humans can be held.
In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to
Sutherland’s point is that for justice to be served the legal system must take into consideration or must understand the culture of the person being convicted. Basically, for the justice to be served the legal system should take into consideration the cultural of an individual to make the appropriate decision as to the punishment that they receive. For instance, since Gypsies have been seen by many of being criminals over time, the law automatically assumes that their attentions are to commit a crime, when in their view what they are doing isn’t considered a crime in their
Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard
Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse
Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.
Cultural relativism states that moral codes vary from culture to culture. A variety between cultures means that in a place where something can be seen as “wrong” another place can see it as “right” and therefore no ultimate right or wrong exist. If one person from one culture travels to a new area, for example an area that allows murder, then the person traveling to that area might be murdered because it is allowed. This, while acceptable, does not take into consideration the interest of the individual traveling and does not meet the MCM.
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.
The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these
Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.
Cultural relativism, which Benedict advocates, is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to an individual’s own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society is also considered “normal”, a culture that views something as immoral may consider it “abnormal.” However, since there is not a universal standard for morality, no one has the privilege to judge another culture or society’s practices. Therefore, as an anthropologist, Benedict believes that all cultures are respectable in their own right.
Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.
Cultural relativism suggests that whatever any culture does is acceptable and we must positively judge other cultures’ practices—it is “right” for them. Who am I to judge differently? Cultural relativism arises out of a concern not to impose our cultural values on other cultures. The problem with believing that all values are