Critical evaluation of the respective interpretation of cultural relativism as explained by Bernard Williams and Alasdair MacIntyre

Résumé du document

The moral relativism denies that any moral code has universal validity, and ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths. Morality is relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. The idea of relativism is not new. Protagoras, a Sophist, claimed that "the man is the measure of all things". Human custom determines good and evil, just and unjust. Thus, ethical assertions are absolutely true or always only relative to some individual, society, or culture (moral relativism and cultural relativism)?

Cultural relativism is the view that all ethical judgments are culturally conditioned. The moral codes change in accordance with the society. We cannot think about a moral code that would apply at all times and in all places. Because the moral knowledge is limited, and moral values are arbitrary, relative or subjective, cultural relativism is a form of skepticism. Morality is a local matter that varies from culture to culture. As stated by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, culture is the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time. Contemporary arguments to support cultural relativism are produced by ethnologists.

Extraits

[...] Morality is only valid from the perspective of the culture. The truth is non-objective; it belongs to a specific culture. People from outside can recognise and they may not share. As explained by Bond[2] (not James), Williams uses “thick concepts”, such as and “brutal”. These concepts are “used to state moral truths from within our own evaluative perspective[3]”. They set concepts opposite. According to Alisdair MacIntyre, morality is embedded in the culture. Unlike Williams, he believes that morality must be rationally defensible, but only from within a particular living tradition. [...]

[...] If there is an objective truth, reason and dialogue between cultures could make understand what is good or bad for human being and try to find a way to live morally. In logic, the law of non-contradiction states in the words of Aristote that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". By this principle, we can understand that a thing is good or not. It is impossible it be both. [...]

[...] How can we say seriously an argument is true for everybody and say in the same time truth depends on the society? 2. Two sophisticated cultural relativist theories. Because simple cultural relativism has not an admissible conclusion, Bernard Williams and Alisdair MacIntyre claim that they are moral truth to avoid the same critiques. A. Argument According to Bernard Williams, simple relativism possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced even in moral philosophy[1]”. For him, there are moral truths. But these moral truths are not absolute and applicable wherever and whenever; they are only true within a particular society. [...]

[...] In theology, ecumenism is promoted by the Churches for unity of faith. How can it be possible to realize according to Williams and MacIntyre? These attempts seem to be dedicated to the failure. Conclusion Because the mains arguments fail, cultural relativism is not sufficient to support the inexistence of an objective and universal moral truth and to prove that morality necessarily varies from culture to culture. However, these theories are interesting, to understand and respect the differences between cultures and think about these to appreciate the values of a given society. [...]

[...] Critically evaluate the respective interpretation of cultural relativism as explained by Bernard Williams and Alasdair MacIntyre The moral relativism denies that any moral code has universal validity, and ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths. Morality is relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. The idea of relativism is not new. Protagoras, a Sophist, claimed that man is the measure of all things”. Human custom determines good and evil, just and unjust. Thus, ethical assertion are they ever true absolutely, or always only relative to some individual, society, or culture (moral relativism and cultural relativism)? [...]