Required Textbook Readings to Accompany these Lecture Notes:
· Elements of Moral Philosophy ch.2: "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism"
· "Letter from Birmingham City Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Cultural Relativism (df.): the theory that explains morality by saying that whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on the moral beliefs that people have in the society within which the action is performed. Whatever actions are believed to be right (or wrong) by the members of a society are right (or wrong) within that society.
So if Cultural Relativism is true, morality is relative to culture.
But what does it mean to say that one thing is relative to another?
It means that the one thing depends on the other in some important way.
· For example, left and right are relative to direction. Carrollton’s location relative to I-20: if you're driving east on I-20, then Carrollton is to your right; but if you're driving west on I-20, Carrollton is on your left; the question "What side of I-20 is Carrollton on, period?" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism says something analogous about morality: whether a given action is morally right or morally wrong is relative to the culture of one's society; more specifically, morality is relative to what people in one's society believe about morality.
Cultural Relativism is a form of a theory that we have already encountered: Moral Skepticism.
A reminder of what that theory says:
Moral Skepticism (df.): the view that there are no objective truths about which actions are right and which actions are wrong, i.e., no moral judgments are true (or false) independent of what people think, feel or believe about morality. One may be a moral skeptic about all morality (complete Moral Skepticism) or just about specific issues, such as infanticide (limited Moral Skepticism).
Cultural Relativism is a form of complete Moral Skepticism. It starts with complete Moral Skepticism and adds more ideas to it to make it more specific.
How is Cultural Relativism is a form of complete Moral Skepticism?
· If morality is nothing but what people in a given society believe about right and wrong, then there is no such thing as objective morality—no such thing as morality apart from what people think about it; and that is exactly what complete Moral Skepticism says.
· Cultural Relativism adds the idea that morality depends on culture, or more specifically, that it depends on what people in a given society believe about morality.
The name "Cultural Relativism" is used in different ways, to refer to a number of different theories. Most of these theories claim that something is relative to (dependent on) one's culture or society. But not all of them refer specifically to morality.
For example, one of these theories claims that standards of evidence and reasoning (what counts as good or bad evidence or a good or bad argument) are relative to one's society. Another claims that all truths (not just moral, but historical, scientific, etc.) are relative to one's culture.
If you have taken an anthropology class, you may have studied another theory called "Cultural Relativism." One statement of that theory is: "in studying another culture, do not evaluate the behavior of its members by the standards and values of its own culture. . . . To anthropologists, relativism is a methodological principle that refers to an outlook that is essential for maximum objectivity and understanding when studying a people whose way of life differs from their own".[1] That anthropological theory is NOT what we are studying in this class; it doesn’t say anything about morality.
When you hear someone refer simply to "Cultural Relativism," you should ask: exactly what theory do you mean? What does the theory say is relative to culture: morality, standards of evidence, truth, or something else?
polygamy (df.): having more than one spouse or mate at a time; more often than not, this involves one man having multiple wives.
· Polygamy is believed to be morally permissible in some societies (and in some segments of American society), but it is believed to be morally wrong in others.
· It is still practiced by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). An estimated 37,000 members of this church reside in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota, and British Columbia.[2]
· FLDS members living at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas made headlines in 2008, when the Ranch was raided and 462 children 17 years old or younger were taken into custody. Officials feared that many children were being subjected to sexual abuse.
· The president of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, was convicted in Texas in 2011 of sexually assaulting two girls, ages 15 and 12, whom he had taken as wives. Prosecutors presented evidence that he had 78 wives, 12 of whom were younger than 15 years old. Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years.[3]
According to Cultural Relativism, there is no truth of the matter about whether forced polygamy involving underage girls is right or wrong universally, just like there is no truth of the matter about whether UWG is on the left or the right of I-20, universally. According to Cultural Relativism, whether forcing a young girl into a polygamous marriage is right or wrong depends on the society in which it occurs. In some societies, it is morally permissible; in others it is immoral; and that's all there is to it.
OPTIONAL VIDEO: “How the FLDS Church Impacted a Small Texas Town” (4:31; San Angelo Standard Times News, 2018)
[Warning: each of these videos contains brief, non-explicit descriptions of sexual abuse.]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim who is now an activist for women’s rights and an outspoken critic of religion and of Islam in particular. She was born in Somalia and spent her childhood there, in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.[4]
In her memoir Infidel (2007), she writes about the religious education she received as a teenager living in Nairobi, Kenya:
I found it remarkable how many esteemed Muslim thinkers had philosophized at such length about precisely how much female skin could be bared without causing chaos to break out across the landscape. Of course, almost all these thinkers agreed that once a girl reaches puberty, every part of her body except her face and her hands must be covered when in the company of any men who are not immediate family, and at all times outside the home. This was because her bare skin would involuntarily cause men to feel an uncontrollable frenzy of sexual arousal. But not all thinkers agreed on exactly which parts of a woman's face and hands were so beguiling that they must be covered.
Some scholars held that the eyes of women were the strongest source of sexual provocation: when the Quran said women should lower their gaze, it actually meant they should hide their eyes. Another school of thought held that the very sight of a woman's lips, especially full ones that were firm and young, could bring a man into a sexual state that could cause his downfall. Yet other thinkers spent pages and pages on the sensual curve of the chin, a pretty nose, or long, slender fingers and the tendency of some women to move their hands in a way that attracted attention to their temptations. For every limitation the Prophet was quoted.
Even when all women had been covered completely from head to toe, another line of thought was opened. For this was not enough. High heels tapped and could trigger in men the image of women’s legs; to avoid sin, women must wear flat shoes that make no noise. Next came perfume: using any kind of pleasant fragrance, even perfumed soap and shampoo, would distract the minds of men for Allah’s worship and cause them to fantasize about sinning. The safest way to cause no harm to anyone seemed to be to avoid contact with any man at all times and just stay in the houses. A man’s sinful erotic thoughts were always the fault of the woman who incited them.[5]
Cultural Relativism implies that there is no objective truth about whether rape is the moral responsibility of the rapist or the victim—there is no objective truth about the morality of rape that applies universally, to all societies.
· In some societies, such as ours, it is believed that it is the rapist who should be blamed for committing a rape.
· In other societies, it is believed that rape is the fault of the woman who is raped and thus she who should be blamed.
If Cultural Relativism is true, neither way of thinking about rape is objectively better or worse than the other. We believe one thing, they believe another, and that’s all there is to be said about it.
Cultural Relativists tend to make the following claims (from EMP pp.16–17):
1) Different societies have different moral codes. [I.e., they have different collective beliefs about morality].
2) The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. [This is basically the definition of “Cultural Relativism.”]
3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society's code better than another's. There are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.[6]
· This is another way of stating complete Moral Skepticism—so Cultural Relativism includes complete Moral Skepticism as one of its claims; in other words, Cultural Relativism is a form of complete Moral Skepticism.
4) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
5) It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
These five claims are independent of each other. This means that it is possible for some to be true and others not.
So as you are thinking about Cultural Relativism, you need to ask yourself whether you accept one or more of these claims, and you should remember that you can accept someone of them without accepting all of them.
In EMP ch.2.4, Rachels gives three arguments against Cultural Relativism.
All three arguments work the same way:
· The first premise says that if Cultural Relativism is true, then some further claim must be true.
· The second premise says that that further claim isn't true.
· The argument concludes that, since that further claim isn't true, Cultural Relativism can't be true, either.
So each of the three arguments looks like this:
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then [some other claim] is also true.
2. But [that other claim] is not true.
3. So Cultural Relativism is not true.
And so they each have the same argument form:
Any argument with this form is valid: if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. For example,
If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
The streets are not wet.
Therefore, it is not raining.
It does not matter if the second premise is true or false; the argument is still valid because it has the form shown above. If the premises were both true, then the conclusion would have to be true (that's just the definition of "valid").[7]
So all three of Rachels' arguments against Cultural Relativism are valid. But does any of them have all true premises? If so, then it is sound, and Cultural Relativism is false.
Reminder: in a sound argument, all the premises are true and the argument is valid. So if an argument is sound, its conclusion must be true.
The arguments are:
· The Moral Inferiority Argument
· The Moral Improvement Argument
· The Moral Criticism Argument (this is illustrated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Below I will state the arguments in standard form (in EMP, they are stated in prose).
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then no customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. But some customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is not true.
As an example to illustrate premise 2, Rachels mentions political oppression in contemporary China.
Other examples of seemingly inferior customs of other societies abound; for example:
· forcing 12-year-old girls into polygamous marriages (as occurs among members of the FLDS);
We know that this argument is valid.
Are the premises of the Moral Inferiority Argument true…? [I am leaving this an open question… you should form your own opinion about this.]
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then a society cannot become morally better than it was before.
2. But a society can become morally better than it was before.*
3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is not true.
*There are many examples that illustrate premise 2:
· the end of slavery in America;
· changes in America over the last four decades in the treatment of women and minorities;
· changes in Germany since the end of WWII (Jewish people and other minorities are no longer systemically persecuted and killed).
If Cultural Relativism is true, then none of these constitutes a moral improvement of the society in question.
These societies have definitely changed, in any number of ways. But this argument points out that if Cultural Relativism is true, then none of those changes count as morally improvements:
· To say that something has improved is to say that it has changed for the better… and that assumes that there is a standard of goodness that we can use to judge the change.
· But Cultural Relativism denies that there is such a standard, so it seems to imply that moral improvement is impossible.
This is argument is definitely valid, because of its form.
But are its premises true? [I am leaving this an open question… you should form your own opinion about this.]
1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then no one who criticizes the moral code of their own society is ever right.
2. But it is sometimes people who criticize the moral code of their own society are right.*
3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is not true.
*An example: Fauziya Kassindja criticizing her society of origin (Togo, in eastern Africa), for allowing parents to force young women to undergo excision against their will (see the story of, EMP sec.2.7).
excision (df.): a type of female genital mutilation (FGM) that involves "the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva )".[8]
OPTIONAL VIDEO: “Survivors Share the Pain of FGM” (The Guardian, 2:48)
[5.10.1.] An Illustration of the Moral Criticism Argument: King’s Letter.
If CR is true, then Martin Luther King Jr.’s (1929-1968) criticism of discriminatory treatment of Blacks in America during the 1950s and 1960s was mistaken.
Given that the culture of the U.S. (or of the American South) at that time included widespread, systematic racial discrimination, King’s internal criticism—criticism from within that society—was mistaken—if CR is true.
In 1963, King wrote a “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”, one of the most influential documents of the civil rights movement. He was in jail for organizing protests in Birmingham, AL, after a state circuit court judge had ruled that such protests could not continue.[9] It was addressed directly to a group of eight white clergymen who had criticized his tactics.
In the letter, King argued in support of civil disobedience, including nonviolent direct action like sit-ins and marches, as a way of forcing those in power to negotiate an end to segregation.[10]
His argument depends on a distinction between laws that are just and laws that are unjust:
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools [Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka], it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just and there are unjust laws. I would argue with Saint Augustine[11] that “An unjust law is no law at all.”
Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas[12], an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statues are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority, and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber[13], the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an “I-it” relationship for the “I-thou” relationship, and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. … So I can urge men to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.
King was assuming that there is a standard of justice—and therefore a standard of morality—that exists outside of American culture and by which our culture and our laws might be judged.
But given that a society’s laws are part of its culture and represent part of its moral code, Cultural Relativism implies that King was wrong: there cannot be any such thing as an unjust law.
OPTIONAL VIDEO: “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (Newseum, 5:39)
The Moral Criticism Argument might be fine-tuned to say the following: There are standards upon which a society’s internal critics might base legitimate criticisms, so Cultural Relativism must not be true.
The Moral Criticism argument is definitely valid, because of its form.
But are its premises true? [I am leaving this an open question… you should form your own opinion about this.]
(Lesson 1) Some of our own practices are merely a matter of convention, i.e., just a matter of the way things are usually done, and not based on an "absolute [objective or universal] rational standard."[14]
At least some of our cultural practices are simply peculiar to our society and are ultimately no morally better or worse than different practices in other societies, e.g.
· funerary practices (ancient Greeks burned their dead bodies, while the Callatians ate theirs; we either cremate or bury ours);
· the bearing of female breasts in public, as in the Janet Jackson / Super Bowl fiasco of 2004;
· monogamous relationships, rather than polyamory.
polyamory (df.): a romantic relationship that involves three or more people, with everyone romantically involved with each other and with the consent of everyone involved.[15]
· This is not the same as polygamy, in which one person is married to multiple spouses but those spouses are not married to each other. Polyamory occurs when a group of three or more people are all romantically involved with each other, with each being an equal partner with every other person in the group.
However, the following caveat (a caveat is a warning, an explanation to prevent misinterpretation) should be kept in mind when considering this lesson:
(Caveat 1): The fact that some of our cultural practices are merely a matter of convention does not imply that all of them are. Cultural Relativism goes too far in saying that all of our practices are mere cultural products, neither objectively right nor wrong.
(Lesson 2) Our moral beliefs are not necessarily "perceptions of the truth"; many of them result from cultural conditioning rather than from unbiased examinations of the evidence, and they might be wrong.
Over the course of our lives, we develop very strong feelings about morality. This can cause us to be very resistant to the suggestion that our moral views are incorrect.
Rachels' example: many people might feel strongly that homosexuality is immoral or evil, not because we have engaged in a rational consideration of the reasons for and against thinking this, but because this has been the prevalent view of many people in our society, and we simply absorbed this view as we grew up. Many of us have strong feelings about this, and we can be resistant when someone suggests that our feelings are misguided. But we can overcome this resistance by remembering that many of those views are the result of cultural conditioning, not rational consideration.
However, the following caveat should be kept in mind: the fact that many of our moral beliefs result from cultural conditioning rather than rational consideration does not imply that none of those beliefs are objectively true. Cultural Relativism goes too far by saying that all moral beliefs are mere cultural prejudices that do not reflect any objective moral truths.[16]
Information contained in these footnotes is provided in case you are interested in further reading. You will not be quizzed on the information given in these footnotes or on the websites to which they link.
[1] James Peoples and Garrick Bailey, Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 10th ed., Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT, 2015, p.15).
[2] The Primer: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Human Services Agencies who offer Assistance to Fundamentalist Mormon Families, August 2009, p.18.
[3] Lindsay Whitehurst, "Warren Jeffs Gets Life in Prison for Sex with Underage Girls," Salt Lake Tribune, August 9, 2011; updated August 11, 2011.
[5] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2008, p. 110, emphasis added. For more information on Ali, see her page at the American Enterprise Institute web site and the website of the AHA Foundation.
[6] Strictly speaking, the claim is really two different claims: 1) there is no objective moral truth, and 2) there is no universal moral truth. Objectivity and universality are not the same thing. It is possible for morality to be objective but not universal (e.g., if there are things that are objectively right for one group of people but objectively wrong for another) and it is possible for it to be universal but not objective (e.g., if morality is determined solely by what people believe about morality, but everyone happens to believe exactly the same thing about morality, like that it is wrong not to care for one's children).
[7] This argument form has a name: modus tollens. You may have encountered this argument form if you have taken Critical Thinking or other philosophy classes. To really understand modus tollens, you need to be able to recognize the differences among the following, similar argument forms:
|
Argument form: |
Arguments that have that form: |
|
modus ponens*
If p, then q. p. Therefore q.
-- always valid |
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is raining. Therefore, the streets are wet.
|
|
modus tollens**
If p, then q. Not q. Therefore not p.
-- always valid |
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are not wet. Therefore, it is not raining.
|
|
affirming the consequent
If p, then q. q. Therefore p.
-- always invalid |
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining.
|
|
denying the antecedent If p, then q. Not p. Therefore not q.
-- always invalid |
If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet.
If I call right now, I will get another ShamWow absolutely free! I did not call right now. Therefore, I will not get another ShamWow absolutely free.
|
* “modus ponens” (Lat., “method of affirming”)
** “modus tollens” (Lat., “method of denial”)
Further examples of the four argument forms…
1. If “Hello” debuted at #1, then Adele is overjoyed.
2. “Hello” debuted at #1
3. Therefore, Adele is overjoyed.
Modus ponens: valid
1. If Philadelphia won the Super Bowl, then Eagles fans are elated.
2. Philadelphia did not win the Super Bowl.
3. Therefore, Eagles fans are not elated.
Denying the antecedent: invalid
1. If Alabama beat Clemson, then Clemson fans are unhappy.
2. Alabama beat Clemson.
3. Therefore, Clemson fans are unhappy.
Modus ponens: valid
1. If there was a bombing in Syria, then people there were killed.
2. People there were killed.
3. Therefore, there was a bombing in Syria.
Affirming the consequent: invalid
1. If Trump won the last debate, then Clinton is sad.
2. Clinton is not sad.
3. Therefore, Trump did not win the first debate.
Modus tollens: valid
[8] "Female Genital Mutilation," World Health Organization, February 2017, retrieved June 12, 2017.
[9] For more information on the Birmingham Campaign, see “Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle: The Birmingham Campaign”, The Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University, accessed January 26, 2015.
[10] The Boutwell and Connor to whom King refers were Albert Boutwell (1904-1978), who was elected mayor of Birmingham in 1963, and Eugene “Bull” Connor (1897-1973), who served as Commissioner of Public Safety (and thus controlled both the Police and Fire Departments) in Birmingham for 22 years and was still in that role while King was in jail.
[11] King is referring to St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C. E.), a Christian philosopher. For more information, see Michael Mendelson, “Saint Augustine”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[12] For information on St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), see Ralph McInerny and John O’Callaghan, “Saint Thomas Aquinas”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[13] For more information on Martin Buber (1878–1965), see Michael Zank and Zachary Braiterman, "Martin Buber", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
[14] As the point is put in the 6th edition of Elements of Moral Philosophy, "Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard." (p.29)
[15] For a news story on the practice of polyamory, see Jessica Bennett, "Only You. And You. And You." Newsweek, July 29, 2009.
[16] For a more detailed discussion of the different forms of moral relativism, see Chris Gowans, "Moral Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).