{"id":652,"date":"2025-03-13T18:56:35","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T18:56:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/4-1-2-what-is-at-stake\/"},"modified":"2025-03-31T22:33:26","modified_gmt":"2025-03-31T22:33:26","slug":"4-1-2-what-is-at-stake","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/4-1-2-what-is-at-stake\/","title":{"raw":"4.1.2 What is at Stake","rendered":"4.1.2 What is at Stake"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

In a moment we will consider each of these points in greater detail. Before we do this, it will be helpful to spell out what is at stake here. That is, we should consider what would be the case about ethical principles and decision making if cultural relativism were true. Its defenders make much of the positive consequences of this theory, while its opponents emphasize its negative implications. As we consider these consequences of the theory, we must remember that whether we like where a theory leads us, in terms of its theoretical consequences, cannot itself determine whether the theory itself is correct. Reality does not care whether we like it. In the case of relativism at least, the extreme nature of its consequences helps explain why it is such a controversial theory.<\/p>\r\n

Defenders of relativism\u00a0present it as the best way to acknowledge the great variety of human value systems and cultures. If there are no ultimately correct moral principles, then all human cultures become equally valid as ways of life. This seems to encourage tolerance of other ways, a welcome relief after millennia of people intolerantly fighting with each other over their differing moral positions. After all, if there are no ultimate standards for right and wrong, we could never justifiably say, \u201cYour group is wrong in doing what you do and so we have the right to force you to change your ways.\u201d On the other hand, a relativist cannot consistently promote tolerance \u2013 otherwise she would be granting tolerance for other cultural practices the status of a universal value, valid for everyone and this is what relativism says does not exist. So we should really say that relativism only rules out one possible way of dealing with conflicts: the rational settlement of differences with reference to some kind of universal principles or values. Sometimes differences of opinions might be tolerated by the members of the groups that differ, sometimes one group will attempt to push its values on the other group. Both approaches are consistent with the claims of relativism.<\/p>\r\n

The first\u00a0troubling consequence of relativism is one you may already have suspected: if there are no real standards, standards about right and wrong that are independent of cultural perspectives, it doesn\u2019t seem possible to condemn other cultures or individuals for doing awful things. For example, imagine that there is a society that has two major groups of people. One of these groups, who happen to be most of the population, decides that the other group doesn\u2019t deserve any respect, perhaps even that they are somehow naturally deficient or inferior. As a result they perform painful and often fatal experiments on the minority group, force them to work without pay, and even decide just to kill them off because it makes them feel better about themselves. What would a relativist say about this? It seems that since the relativist is only willing to recognize local or relative standards, she would have to conclude that although she doesn\u2019t like it, or that such behavior would never be tolerated in her society, she really can\u2019t condemn what this group of people are doing as simply being wrong. Why not? Well, because it seems right to most people in that other society.<\/p>\r\n

Furthermore, relativism, if it were true, would require us to reject the idea that we can really make moral progress. Consider voting rights for women and African-Americans. In early American history both groups were denied these rights. Later, after the Civil war in the case of African-American men and then in the early twentieth century in the case of all women, the Constitution was amended when people recognized that it was wrong to restrict these groups\u2019 access to the political process just because of race or gender. Many of us would consider this a case of moral progress \u2013 a basic right was extended to people who had previously, for no good reason, been denied this right. What would a relativist say? Could they say that this was really a case of progress? Probably not, since progress implies that things are getting better, and this requires that there is some standard against which we can measure better or worse. So, for the relativist there is no such thing as progress, only different ways of doing things, none of which are better or worse than any others. Is this a conclusion you are comfortable with?<\/p>\r\n

Relativism seems\u00a0like a plausible theory about the nature of value judgments. It also seems, at first glance at least, to be a theory with nothing but positive implications \u2013 it seems to encourage of diversity and lets everyone do their own thing. However, as we have just seen this easy-going character of relativism soon reveals a darker side. A relativist cannot really have any grounds for condemning any behavior at all, no matter how intuitively awful it seems, if someone believes that it is OK. In addition relativism does away with one of the most important parts of our moral thinking, the idea that maybe through our efforts we can make things a little better. This idea of progress is rendered simply meaningless by relativism. These implications of relativism do not by themselves let us know whether relativism is true. At best they reveal what the stakes are \u2013 if relativism is true we get tolerance at the expense of having to tolerate anything all at that someone feels is the right thing to do. To determine whether relativism is true we need to consider more explicitly the arguments in support of this theory.<\/p>\r\n

To sum up, if relativism is true, then<\/p>\r\n\r\n