CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Different Moral Codes

Reflection:
There are many different societies and every society has a different experience, way of
life, practices, and own way of survival that become the starting point of our reflection. We may
have the same experience but we are different in our own reflection on it. It may happen that our
reactions to different practices are the result of the reflection of our society. Reflection is very
essential in living a moral life because through that we can have a moral appraisal of our action.

Interpretation:
Every society has a different interpretation of their value system, for instance “Consider a
culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This may even be a poor culture, in
which there is not enough food; still, the cows are not to be touched.” (Rachels and Rachels,
2012). It may happen that those practices are the result of their interpretation that the soul of their
deceased love ones may inhabit the bodies of animals. The system of education is an
interpretation on how are we going to rear a child. The set of beliefs that we are inherited from
our parents becomes our standard in interpreting an action to be right or wrong.

Relation:
It is also within the bound of human relationship that different moral codes exist. Our
relationship with our parents, our upbringing, our association with our peers, our relationship
with our teachers further escalates the level of differences among individuals and groups.
Reflection, interpretation, and relation are some of the reasons why different moral codes
exist. These three may comprises the philosophy from which different moral codes originated.
It is the view of the relativists that values depend on the group’s value system.
“According to cultural relativist, what is good and right is what a particular culture says it is”.
(Honer et.al, 2012). What the culture believes to be good is good based on the culture criterion of
what is right or wrong. There is no universal standard that is binding to all culture that could
serve as moral measure in judging it. As a consequence, morality is now derived from the norms
that are prevalent in a culture. The notion of what is good and evil becomes culture dependent. It
is the culture that dictates what is good. Let’s take a look at this example.
There are different cultural practices that may somehow support the claims of cultural
relativism. “Consider the Eskimos of the early and mid – 20 th century. The Eskimos are the native
people of Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, and Northeaster Siberia, in Asiatic Russia.
Today, none of these groups call themselves “Eskimos” but the term has historically referred to
that scattered Arctic population. Prior to the 20 th century, the outside world knew little about
them. Then explorers began to bring back strange tales.
 The Eskimos live in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs
turned out to be different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and would share
their wives with guest, lending them out of the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a
community a dominant male might demand – and get regular sexual access to other men’s wives.
The women, however, were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands
and taking up new partners – free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make too
much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom marriage was a volatile practice that bore little
resemblance to our custom. “[RACHERL, Elements of Moral Philosophy, p151”.
From the given example of the practices of the Eskimos, we may realize how different
our culture from them is because for us Filipinos it is a huge insult to our manhood that are wife
would engage in sexual intercourse with other man. We neither give consent nor tolerate these
practices. If we try to reflect on our culture when we see our wife talking to another man, we
sometimes feel like killing that man. We can offer foods for our visitors as a sign of hospitality
but we do not offer our wives for them to have sex with. They may sleep in our house but they
cannot sleep with our wives. We Filipinos are protective of the members of our family because
of the high value we give to “family”.
But it was not only in their marriage and sexual practices do we differ. The Eskimos also
seemed to care less about human life. Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen,
an early explorer, reported meeting one woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of
them at birth. Female babies, he found, were especially likely to be killed, and this was permitted
at the parent’s discretion, with no social stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family
members became too feeble, they were left out in the snow to die. In Eskimo society, there
seemed to be remarkably little respect for life.
In the Filipino culture, however, parents bring up their children to the best of their ability
and protect them with all their might. For instance, when a child who had been disciplined by his
teacher squealed to his parents about what his teacher did to him, his parents most likely, would
go to school, confront the teacher and tell him that he has no right to hurt the child because it was
not he, the teacher, who gave life to and brought up the child.
On the other hand, when it comes to supporting our children, we Filipino parents try to
provide for ourselves.
This way of life of the Eskimos and the way of life of the Filipinos are different and it is
noticeable that we differ on what we consider valuable. Since one culture is different form theirs,
it is reasonable to look at their practices based on their own horizon and moral evaluation.

Consequence of Cultural Relativism

Accepting the core principle of cultural relativism. Is tantamount to accepting that we can
no longer have moral agreement on some issues affecting the life of an individual wherein
consensus is imperative. How can we advocate the peace agreement is ignored? We cannot set
aside our cultural differences but we also cannot set aside moral agreement just because of
cultural differences. If we look at it carefully, the chaos prevalent in our society emanates not
from political disagreements but from our incapability to push a moral agreement. If hoarding a
notorious criminal is morally acceptable for a given culture and they believe that there is nothing
wrong with it, then peace and truth are superficial concepts. 0
1. “We could no longer say that the custom of other societies are morally inferior to our
own. We should never condemn a society merely because it is “different” (Rachels &
Rachels, 2012). One culture cannot insist its moral standard to another culture even if the
people of that culture firmly believe that their standard of what is right and wrong are
actually right. We are barred from criticizing other cultural practices even though they are
extremely different. Though cultural relativism may prohibit us from imposing our
culture’s moral standards to another culture, but it must not barred us fro0m criticizing
and condemning cultural practices.
2. “We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. Cultural
Relativism suggest a simple test for determining what is right and what is
wrong: All we need to do is ask whether the action is in line with the code of
the society in question.” (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). How can we question a
culture that teaches us what is right and what is wrong? It is much as saying.
“Don’t argue anymore. Just follow the rules and you will never stumble”. It
blocks the door to improving our which can be achieved by looking into and
learning from other culture. Learning from other culture can make a difference
but adopting it is different. “If right and wrong are relative to culture, this
must be for our own culture.” (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). If that is so, cultural
relativism is universal even if it is relative for them.
3. “The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.” Culture is the measure that
evaluates progress. It is the culture that determines if there is something to
change. “The society’s ideals are the standards by which reform is assessed.”
Cultural relativism is not open standards that may contribute to the progress of
an individual and the society at large and that may give its people an
opportunity to make themselves and their lives more humane. How can we
give progress to our lives if the norms of our culture are the sole basis of how
we conduct our lives? What if the culture preserves its norms but deprives it
people the opportunity to live well?
Name: Date:
Year and Section: Score:

EXERCISE NO. 2
MATCHING TYPE. Match the items in Column A with the items in Column B. Write the
letter only before each number.

Column A Column B
___1. Values are relative to the individual a. Eupraxia
___2. Moral judgement is based on sentiments b. Subjectivism
___3. Values are grounded in a reality outside of humanity c. Existentialism
___4. Categorical Imperative d. Objectivism
___5. Magnetic Influence Thesis e. Immanuel Kant
___6. Ergon Theory f. Stevenson
___7. Ethical sentence is merely an expression of sentiments g. Aristotle
___8. Values are culturally bound h. Cultural relativism
___9. Human good is attainable by action i. David Hume
___10. It means good action j. Emotivism
 Chapter 3

SUBJECTIVISM
DAVID HUME (1711-1776)
David Hume was born at Edinburgh in not so rich but a good family. He was brought up
as a Calvinist. At early age he discarded the doctrines which he had been taught. His father
intended him to become a lawyer but followed his passion to study philosophy and general
knowledge. His insufficient fortune made him try to be merchant at Bristol. Though it was
unsuccessful, he was resolved found his vocation to devote his life to literary pursuit. In 1734-37,
he published his three volumes philosophical masterpiece the Treatise of Human Nature. In
1745, Hume applied at the University of Edinburgh but was not successful perhaps because of his
reputation for sketicism and atheism. In 1751, he published An Inquiry concerning the Principles
of Morals which he was considered the best of his works.
In 1756, he published the History of England which made him well-known as historian
than philosopher. He became secretary to the British Embassy in Paris. After his to return to
Edinburgh in 1766, he became Under-secretary of State. He died at the age of 65.

ALFRED J. AYER (1910-1989)

Professor of Mind and Logic at the University of London, was a scholar at Eton College
and Christ Church, Oxford. He lectured at Christ Church from 1932-1935, and from 1935 to
1944 was a research scholar there, receiving his M.A degree, in 1936. From 1944 to 1946,
Professor Ayer was a Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and Dean of Waham during 1945-
1946. During World War II, he served in the Weldish Guards and performed intelligence duties.
Also, in 1945, he was attaché to the British Embassy in Paris. Hs appointment to Grote Professor
of Philosophy at the University of London came in 1946: the academic year 1948-49 Ayer spent
as a visiting professor at New York University. One of the clearest expositors of logical
positivism, Ayer wrote, besides a number of articles, Language, Truth and Logic (1936, revised
in 1946), The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940), Logical Positivism (1959), and The
Origins of Pragmatism (1968).

CHARLES L. STEVENSON (1908-1979)

From the Department of Philosophy of the University of Michigan, he received his A.B.
degree from Yale University in 1930, his B.A. degree from Cambridge University in 1933, and
his Ph.D. degree from Harvard in 1935. From 1934 to 1939, he was at Harvard doing graduate
work and teaching, from 1946, he was an assistant professor at Yale, joining the staff at the
University of Michigan in 1946. During the academic year 1945-46, Professor Stevenson was a
Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellow, His chief works in Ethics, Ethics and Language, was
published in 1944, and he wrote a number of articles for British and American journals.

If cultural relativism is the belief that moral standards are relatively culture bound,
subjectivism is the belief that moral standards are relatively dependent on the individual.
“Subjectivism asserts that all values are relative to the individual. According to the adherents of
subjectivism, to claim that something is good or right is simply to say “I like it” or “I approve it”
(Honer et.al, 2002). This means that values are grounded on feelings, desire sensitivity, choice,
that is, in something other than cognition or a priori principles (Jacobs, 2005). Therefore, moral
values are non cognitive. It is not knowledge but merely an opinion.
The only justification for value judgement, then, is how a person feels or what he or she
committed to. Subjectivism also holds the position that moral judgement is not an assertion
but only an expression of sentiments wherein what is good or bad depends of what being
approved by an individual.
This belief was developed by the existentialists and Linguistic analysis, they both believe on
subjectivity and relatively of values but they differ on the way they developed subjectivism.
Existentialism developed subjectivism by asserting that man as person is a subject. If man is an
object, he cannot confer or provide moral value because he is an object but since man is an
object, he is now capable of providing himself a value system he can be committed to. Therefore,
giving alms to the needy is good even if there is a law prohibiting this action. The goodness of
this action is measured not by the law but by the choice of individual committed to it.
On the other hand, the linguistic analysis developed subjectivism in the image of
emotivism of emotive theory. For them our statement about what is right and what is wrong is
meaningless in the sense that it cannot have a truth value. For instance, I said. “You acted
wrongly in cheating with your classmate.” This statement for the emotivists comes from our
feeling of disapproval of the said act. Therefore, it is merely an expression of my feelings, it
cannot be contradicted. No one can contradict feelings because only statements that can be either
true or false can be contradicted. For instance, material body is subject to the law of gravity. It is
verifiable and can be true or false unlike this expression “You ought not to cheat.” For the
emotivist this is not an assertion but merely an expression of disapproval. What now for them is
the basis of right and wrong? It is what the individuals approves is right and it is what the
individual disapproves is wrong. Now if an individual expresses approval or disapproval it is not
based on an objective moral standard but based on his feelings.
Emotivists also assert that moral judgement does not describe anything about an
objective’s moral features. For instance, I say “Cheating is wrong.” For the emotivists, this
judgement does not describe anything about the features of cheating but I’m merely expressing
my disapproval of it.
According to Hume, in assessing the morality of an action you cannot find objects that
will qualify the action as wrong.
In assessing the morality of an action, you cannot find anything that the said action is
vice, but when you turn on to your feelings there lies within a certain feeling of disapproval.
When make a moral judgement we are not making a moral assessment based on an objective
standard but based on our feelings of approval or disapproval. And that comes not from our
reason from but on our feelings or sentiments (Denise et.al, 1996).
This is one of Hume’s contentions, and in order to make it more understandable, let’s try
to look at it from the given situation and illustration below.
1. In one community women give birth not to have kids and raise a family but to
earn money in exchange of their babies. If we assess the action objectively,
some might say there’s nothing wrong with it. However, some might say the
action is totally immoral because they fell disgust towards the action, remorse
for the mothers and pity for the innocent babies who will never experience to
be loved and be raised by their biological mothers.
2. A stole the laptop of B. we can now pass a moral judgement that A’s action in
stealing the laptop of B is bad. Furthermore, there are actions that we said to
be virtuous or good
a. A returned the wallet of B when B left the table.
b. A’s action of returning the wallet of B is good.
From the given situations, the moral judgement that we pass to A stealing the laptop of B
and A returning the wallet if B arose not because there is an objective moral standard but
because of our feelings of approval or disapproval of the act. Therefore, for Hume an
 action [external behavioral event] and feelings of approval and disapproval [internal
mental event] are the basis of moral assertion and not two external events-action and
objective standard. We may now conclude that an action is said to be good because of our
moral approval of it and an action is bad based on our feelings of disapproval of it.

Emotivism
A.J Ayer
He focuses on moral judgement is related to our feelings or approval or disapproval in
certain action. His contention is similar to David Hume. However, A.J. Ayer further argues that
moral judgement is not an assertion but an expression of approval. For instance, if I say that
cheating is bad. I’m not asserting anything about the features of an objective reality, but I’m
merely expressing my disapproval on that state of affairs. Since, moral judgement is not an
assertion but an expression of approval, it cannot be true or false, if it cannot be true or false
moral judgement therefore possess no cognitive meaning or meaningless if it has a meaning that
is not logical but emotive meaning. For Ayer moral discourse is meaningless for it cannot
contradict another emotion.
Therefore, if we are to debate on whether an abortion is right or wrong, we will not be
able to establish the truthfulness of our claim. Rather, we can only lay down the reasons for our
approval disapproval of abortion.
In his book Ethics and Language, Steven expresses his agreement with Ayer’s contention
that moral judgement describes the speaker’s feelings, but he further adds that moral judgement
also has an imperative component intended to change the listeners feelings (Baucan, 2011).
Stevenson contends that moral judgement is not merely an expression of an individual feelings
but it has also the characteristics of influencing the attitude of the one who hears the moral
expression. This idea of Stevenson was called “Magnetic Influence Thesis.” For instance, A
gave alms to B. Now I state that giving alms is good. The act of giving made by A has
motivational effect that will enable the observer or listener to do the same under similar situation.
Stevenson form of emotivism does not claim validity unlike the other form of emotivism
which claims validity. But to Stevenson, ethical sentences are not merely an expression of
feelings. In addition, Stevenson in his Ethics and Language contend that “It is worth mentioning
that ethical terms do not serve only to express feelings. They are calculated to arouse feelings,
and so to stimulate action. Indeed, some of them aroused in such a way to give the sentence in
which they occur the effect on command” (TRADITION) ‘It is one’s duty to return the wallet
picked.’ This sentence according to Stevenson expresses certain feelings about honestly and it
also issue a command that one ought to be honest.
From the given moral standard, we can now illustrate the moral principle of emotivism
and the characteristic of a moral judgement.

Moral judgement is Based on Feelings of Approval or Disapproval

Hume A.J. Ayer
Feelings – Moral Judgment Feelings – Moral Judgement
Expression and not an assertion
Not verifiable – it cannot be true or
false
C.L. Stevenson
Feelings – Moral Judgement
Expression and not assertion
Not verifiable – it cannot be true or
false
Evoke an action – imperative
component
 Are all the people sensitive about the actions made by others in order for them to
influenced by the action of the latter? We know for a fact that there are actions that we tend to
disapprove when done by other people because we feel that they are only correct when we
ourselves perform them.

Universalism
Cultural relativism and subjectivism might result to a moral anarchy wherein people may
perform an action without minding whether their action is detrimental to other people as long as
they act according to their own approbation and cultural practices. If it is the consequence of
cultural relativism, is there a need for a universal moral principle that is binding to everyone?
There is a belief called “objectivism” which maintains that values are grounded in a
reality outside humanity” (Honer, et.al., 2002). Moral value is independent on one’s like and
dislike or one’s approval or disapproval. ‘These absolutist holds that moral laws are universally
binding to all and eternally true, whether or not only moral law is in fact universally respected or
obeyed’. (Honer, et.al., 2002). This universal moral principle cannot be altered by individual
belief and one’s action must accord with it to be moral. For instance, honoring one’s parents is
binding to all and whether you believe this principle or not, you still have to abide by it. Here are
some ways to understand universal argument.
First, “The belief in moral laws established by God and interpreted by a religious
tradition.” (Honer, et.al., 2002). Example is the Ten Commandments. These are universally
binding; its authority did not come from the norms established by a specific culture but from
God, and this moral law had been interpreted by religious leaders. Authority serves as the moral
justification of value judgement, and whatever culture you have, you are bound by this law. In
line with this, we may observe that religion is a huge aspect of cultivating a moral standard.
Second, is the natural laws theory of absolute values. “According to this view, God
endowed each creature with certain intrinsic tendencies (natural laws) according to which it is
supposed to act. These laws can be discovered by the use of reason alone, thereby enabling
people to know the will of God without recourse to special revelation.” (Honer, et/al., 2002).
This belief contends that all persons have intrinsic tendencies and it can be discovered by reason
and we must act according to it.
Third, for Plato, there is an absolute value, and this is found in other realm where the true
good lies and comprehending this “Idea of Good” will make a person perform good action.
According to Plato only those people who are guided by the light of reason are able to realize
this good. This makes moral life exclusive to the wisest. But how can we know who are the
wisest? Is it the people who are trained to philosophy? Is being good reserved only to the wisest.
Is being good an opportunity for every individual?
Fourth, “Moral principles that are right have the form of Categorical Imperative. So, act
so that you can at the same time will that your act can be raised the level of a universal law for
anyone at any time.” (Honer, et.al., 2002). For instance, if truth is telling is right for me it is also
right for other people to do the same. I must ask myself if I want truth telling to be a universal
law. If I want, I must act in accord with it. For Kant, it is through our reason that we can realize
this categorical imperative. Since everyone has a reason, he has an assumption That everyone is
capable of doing it, without exemption. If for the existentialist and for the emotivist, right and
wrong are dependent on one’s choice and approbation, for Kant, it is reason that is fundamental
through which we can meet everyone and make a consensus. It is through reason that can make
truth telling be a universal law. Therefore, for Kant, it is reason that ordained an action to be
good.
Name: Date:
Year and Section: Score:

EXERCISE NO. 3
ESSAY
1. Differentiate existentialism and linguistic analysist form of emotivism.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. What is the importance of the existentialist approach on moral values?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3. What is the implication of justifying moral judgement based on sentiments?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4. When can we say that an action is good?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5. What is the role of ethics on the things you want to change about yourself?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________