Cultural Relativism is the ethical belief that we should determine what behaviors are moral based on what our culture determines is moral. In other words what we "ought" to do and "ought not" to do are determined by the specific cultural group we live amongst. It seems that more and more Christians are being taught the problems and weaknesses of relativism. Most likely we identify the belief by the popular phrase, "That is true for you, but not for me."
Perhaps though you have found yourself in a conversation with someone who espouses Cultural Relativism and were at a lack for words to help them see the weaknesses of it. Even though we as Christians can identify ethical relativism when we spot it, we still may feel like we don't have an easy way to point out the weakness of this system in a conversation. Cultural Relativism is full of weaknesses, but I thought I would give one that can easily be used in conversation and provide an illustration as well.
1) The Weakness - Cultural Relativism can only describe moral behavior; it cannot prescribe moral behavior. Relativism can only tell us what is going on in any certain culture; much like an anthropologist would. It fails to be able to prescribe what we "ought" and "ought not" to do. This is a huge failure, because it means that ultimately I cannot make a moral decision because I have no standard that I "ought" to do.
2) The Illustration - Imagine an American man who travels to Kenya and meets a Japanese lady. They become romantically involved, and someone suggests that they move in together. Assuming the man and the woman are Cultural Relativists, how do they decide whether this is ethical? Do they use the man's North American model for dating? Do they use the woman's Asian model for dating? Or do they use the African model where they are living? All the Cultural Relativist can do is to describe the different beliefs that each of the three perspectives would have. In no way can it actually cut through the culture and say what "ought" to be done. In other words, epic fail.
Normally for a person to change their mind, they need to see some problem with the view they are holding. This is a fairly non-confrontational way to help Cultural Relativists see the non-sequitur nature of their ethical system. Hopefully, it can lead to a chance to share the Christian worldview, specifically the Gospel.
I wonder if they could try to be 'unbound' from their individual cultures? In other words, they would feel the freedom from an ethical relativist perspective to do whatever they wanted because they are at a unique nexus of relativism. They have created their own culture and can change their values on a whim.
ReplyDeleteNot saying it would work in the real world, just trying to think outside of the refrigerator.
I think practically a cultural relativist has no other option than the one you presented. CR has left them bankrupt and ended its usefulness. To choose which culture you want to follow is a different (although related system) of moral subjectivism (hedonism). In moral subjectivism the cultural input would just become a veneer hiding what a person truly wanted to do anyway.
ReplyDeleteI liked this. I hear a lot of this type of thinking at school. While I agree with you and I agree with your response to cultural relavatism, in my own mind, I'm hearing the response(s) I would get from some of the people at school I've talked to.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, doesn't the dating example only further prove the point that morals are relative so we can't possibly know what's true. Again I'm only saying this because I feel like that's the response I would get if I brought this up.
I know I'm jumping from a CR perspective to more of a postmodern/theres-no-way-to-know-what's-true perspective, but usually the two kind of go hand in hand (at least with people I talk to). A lot of people though would say that there are so many different beliefs and ideas that we can't really know whats true.
Usually I find a tactful way of saying that that is actually lazy thinking, but I think this dating argument in someways supports the postmodernist.
I hope that made sense, it's late and I need to go to bed.
Ali, your post made complete sense, and I can easily see a conversation going exactly as you have described it: from CR to PM. In your description the PM thinking is really showing it's agnostic center- "we can't really know anything for sure."
ReplyDeleteThe dating illustration shows the failure of both CR and PM to give any kind of positive ethic to live by. For the CR/PM individual to just cry and say, "we can never know, we can never know" really doesn't accomplish any moral decision about what the dating couple should do (or in ethical terminology, "ought to do"). To use that as some kind of an excuse about not thinking about ethics is truly lazy thinking (as you said).
These same people who do not want to (or cannot) make a decision about the dating couple would have no problem decrying the act of rape or murder if it happened to someone they know. Their CR/PM indecision would be tossed out the window, and their song would change from, "we can never know" to "that was wrong!"
So in the end CR/PM cannot prescribe what ought to be done/not done it can only describe what is done. And since even the CR/PM people believe that there are acts which ought not to be done, their opinion is ultimately unhelpful in figuring out what it means to live an ethical life.
Got it. The selective tossing out of a CR/PM perspective is something I actually see on a daily basis from students and professors alike depending on thier own particular brand of morality and situation we are dealing with.
ReplyDeleteI've been in these conversations and what you brought up usually backs them into corner (I mean that in a good way, I'm not saying I'm just trying to win arguments).
What's hard is not coming across as a jerk. I know its all in how you say things but sometimes in dealing with these perspectives, to make an absolute statement, is to be judgemental. But I have had some very productive conversations, with no small thanks "evangelism in a post-modern world". Also, I have to add my college writing one prof was thorouhly impressed when I knew what an epistomology was three years ago. :) Keep writing. :)
Sometimes it takes an 'offensive' comment to shake people into thinking about what they believe and why, bold pheasant plucker...
ReplyDeleteI recently found many useful information in your website especially this blog page. Among the lots of comments on your articles. Thanks for sharing. Relationship tips
ReplyDelete