Kelsey Auman

Analysis Essay
Dr. Brendan Mahoney

An Analytical Approach to “The Challenges of Cultural Relativism”

The world is a conglomeration of people with many different cultures, each with

their own customs and beliefs. Certain practices that are accepted, even encouraged, in one

culture are often frowned upon in another culture. Because of this, cultures often vary

greatly in their ethical concepts of right and wrong. It is impossible to create a universal

moral code without devaluing certain cultures and contradicting the morals that they have

instilled in their people. Cultural relativism, the theory that what is morally right and

wrong depends only on one’s culture, attempts to address the variance in ethical standards

across cultures. However, this theory is not without its flaws. In “The Challenge of Cultural

Relativism,” James Rachels examines the influential theory of cultural relativism and

questions its validity.

Rachels’ situation seems to be that people are taking the wrong approach in their

search for answers to moral questions. He specifically targets those who profess to believe

in cultural relativism, but neglect to understand all of its implications and flaws. Although

he does not state this explicitly, it is evident in his prose. His motivation for writing this

essay is primarily to educate his audience, the people reading his work, about cultural

relativism. It is important to him that people do not blindly subscribe to cultural

relativism because it is an attractive theory. Rather, he wants people to question every

component of the theory to ensure that it is sound and holds up to criticism. He is driven
by a desire to foster meaningful dialogue about cultural relativism and whether or not it is

really as plausible as it appears.

Rachels main claim is that the theory of cultural relativism has serious

shortcomings, although some of the premises it is based on are valid. In other words, it is

“not [as] plausible as it appears to be.” (57) One of the main premises that cultural

relativism stands on is the idea that “different cultures have different moral codes.” (54)

Rachels proves that this is true by using several examples of cultural practices that differ

substantially from our own, including marriage in Eskimo communities. Eskimos believe

that husbands can have multiple wives, and that women are allowed to break the marriage

arrangement at any time and find a new partner (55).

Rachels addresses this idea again later in his essay and makes the claim that our

cultures are not nearly as different as they appear to be. He argues that we overestimate

and dramaticize the variations among cultures. The reality is that all cultures have some

core values in common that are necessary to sustain civilization. One of these values,

according to Rachels, is to place high value on their children and infants. It is impossible

for these individuals to care for themselves, and without them society would eventually die

out. (63).

Another premise of cultural relativism, which follows from the first, is that we

cannot objectively judge any one society’s moral code to be superior to the moral code of

another society. Rachels refers to this as the “Cultural Differences Argument” (58). He

claims that it is unreasonable to conclude that there is no ‘objective truth’ in morality

simply because people in different societies disagree on what is moral. It is entirely

possible that the parties in question are simply mistaken, however. The issue with the
Cultural Differences Argument is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. As

Rachels points out, it is impossible to arrive at a “substantive conclusion” about a topic

(morality, in this case) from the fact that people disagree about it (58).

Rachels’ analysis of the consequences of the acceptance of cultural relativism

provides more support for his claim that the theory is flawed. He states that, first of all, we

could no longer argue that our customs are morally superior to those of other cultures. We

would have to accept that other societies are “different” (59) and that these differences do

not make them inferior. Another consequence would be that we could look to the

standards of our society to determine whether our actions are right or wrong. This is

problematic because we may be under the impression that certain aspects of our society’s

moral code are flawed but, according to cultural relativism, we cannot criticize them (59).

The third and final consequence of accepting cultural relativism is that “moral progress” is

questionable (60). In other words, social reform could take place only in a very limited

capacity. The example Rachels gives is that women held a constricted role in Western

society for most of history, and only recently were liberated from that position. However,

cultural relativism would not allow us to consider this “progress” at all because we are

unable to judge whether any new way of doing things is better than the old way of doing

things (60).

Rachels essay is effective because he does not neglect to make some concessions.

He acknowledges that the theory of cultural relativism teaches us two valuable lessons.

The first is that cultural relativism makes us aware of the fact that all of our preferences are

not “based on some absolute rational standard.” (64) It is easy to forget that many cultural

practices are not widespread, rather they are exclusive to a certain society. This is
significant because we tend to think of matters objectively in terms of right or wrong, when

they are in reality “nothing more than social conventions.”(65) The second lesson is that we

must always remember to keep an open mind. Because of the way we are raised or the

society in which we grow up, we learn to perceive certain actions as acceptable or

unacceptable. Inevitably, we will encounter people who challenge our beliefs. It is difficult

for us to reconcile their beliefs with ours, and to accept that their point of view is valid.

Cultural relativism serves as a constant reminder that our culture is often reflected in our

ethical beliefs (65).

Rachels argument is very convincing because he synthesizes many examples and

uses them to support his claims. The Eskimo example, which was used multiple times, was

especially compelling. Without examples, it is sometimes difficult to understand the

relevance of the argument to oneself and the world as a whole. In this case, it was

necessary to use Eskimos because their culture and the moral code that accompanies it is

so foreign to us. Yet, this article was written in such a way that readers were not compelled

to judge the Eskimos. Although Eskimos actively practice infanticide(55), readers are

forced to consider Rachels’ conclusion that their values are “really not all that different

from our values.” (62) His clarity throughout was exceptional, and the examples played a

big role in that.

As mentioned in the text, cultural relativism is a widely accepted theory. However,

this should not in any way discredit the validity of Rachels argument. He provides a

thorough analysis of the theory and its tenets in a well-organized essay. While

acknowledging that the theory is “attractive” (66), he does not hesitate to expose what he

believes to be its shortcomings. His straightforward approach to the topic forces readers
who are proponents of cultural relativism to question their beliefs, which is his goal in

writing this piece. It is evident that Rachels is well educated on the topic of cultural

relativism because of his application of cultural relativism to real and hypothetical

situations. His ability to convey the value that cultural relativism may have also lends itself

to credibility because he is able to see both sides of the issue instead of just his own.

Rachels’ ethos serves to make his argument more convincing and legitimate because, as

readers, we can trust him to be reliable.

James Rachels’ piece “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” is a compelling analysis

of the widespread theory and, particularly, where it appears to be flawed. He refutes the

idea that there is no “objective standard” for judging moral codes (56). Yet he does not

offer an alternate theory for understanding universal ethics in a world where so many

cultures are so different. Rachels wrote this piece with the intention of educating those

who may not understand cultural relativism and all its implications, and he succeeded in

this goal. Although his argument is not particularly complex, it is revealing and forces

readers to look at things in a new way. The significance of this essay lies in the fact that

Rachels was willing to question a well-established belief, in the hopes of making progress

towards greater ethical understanding.

Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” Exploring Ethics. Ed. Steven Kahn.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 54-66. Print.