Cultural Relativism/Moral Universalism

I hope this is the right forum to bring this up…

Are there any good arguments for a person to maintain the belief that cultural values are relative (i. e. that no one culture is “better/correct/right/natural” than another), while retaining a belief in moral universalism (i. e. that there exists some sort of universal morality that applies to everyone)?

Personally, I believe that MOST (but not ALL) moral values are inherently cultural ones. I just can’t think of any good arguments to counter the proposition that not just most, but ALL moral values are inherently cultural (and hence relative vis-a-vis other cultures).

Well, maybe one, but I’m not sure if its a good approach, either. If I redefine moral universalism to mean that there exists a “core” set of values that all cultures believe to be moral, then I suppose I could define what those “core” moral values are and marshall empirical evidence to support my argument.

I guess what I’m looking for is a some sort of logical consistency/coherence in maintaining a belief in cultural relativism while also retaining a belief in moral universalism.

Thoughts?

Love is the Absolute Morality which different cultures (and even different individuals) might apply in different ways.

One possible position would be that all our moral values are inescapably cultural (how else do we acquire them?), but that there nevertheless exists some sort of universal morality which ought to apply to everyone. The existance of such a universal morality would be the reason why some moral values, although inherently cultural, might not be relative.

Hoo boy. OK, I’ll give it a whirl. You might also want to read the discussion in this thread.

Before I start, I will state that I haven’t done nearly enough reading on relative and absolute morality to engage in debate on those philosophies. But I will give my take on things.


I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ as handed down from on high. I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ towards which we (all peoples of the earth) are tending.

I do think that there are universal principles without which any particular society or culture can not long survive. However, the interpretation of those principles (usually referred to within any given society as its ‘morals’ or ‘values’) is cultural and varies. I do think that, as the peoples and cultures of this world become more interdependent and entwined and familiar to one another, the cultural interpretations of those principles grow closer in meaning.
For instance, all cultures believe that ‘murder is wrong’. So ‘murder is wrong’ can be considered a universal principle. Please note that I do NOT think that all cultures believe this because it is some sort of ‘higher’ principle or ‘universally existent’ moral. I simply think that any culture or society that does not follow this principle will rapidly destroy itself.

Now, let’s look at specifics. Most cultures only consider ‘murder’ to apply to humans. Many cultures do not consider anyone outside of their society to truly be ‘human’. Ergo, if you kill your neighbor, it’s ‘murder’, but if you kill that guy that lives across the river, it’s not. This is the rationale that allowed earlier generations of Europeans to wipe out entire populations - those ‘savages’ were not fully human. (This isn’t intended as Euro-bashing; many of those ‘savage’ tribes used much the same definitions to kill off competitors.) IOW, ‘murder’ is prohibited within the society, else the society might soon be destroyed by its own members, but killing outside of that society is accepted.

The generally accepted definition of ‘murder’ is ‘killing of innocents’; I’ll stick with that. (I realize that this is not the legal definition, but I’m not discussing the U.S. penal code here.) So to really define ‘murder’, one must first define ‘innocent’. Again, many cultures define ‘innocent’ as ‘those who fit into our society’. Christians of the Middle Ages could happily slaughter infidels and heretics - it was not ‘murder’ because those people were, by definition, not innocent. Same for the Moslem jihads, the Jewish massacres documented in the OT, etc. Killing outside of the defining society is OK because it doesn’t count as ‘murder’.

In current Western society, generally ‘murder’ does not include lawful executions, killing of military personnel in battle, accidental killings (unless through negligence), etc. However, many US/Euro’s would decry some lawful executions under Islamic law because they can be carried out (IIRC) by the families involved without recourse to a formal court of law and hence would not be ‘lawful’ outside of the Islamic community. On the other hand, in PETA society, ‘murder’ has been extended beyond humans to include killing of animals. Not generally accepted by the population at large, but to those in that society, a perfectly valid definition.
So, even though the concept that ‘murder is wrong’ is universal, the meaning and interpretation and application is cultural and relative. BUT, as our sense of community grows larger to include those who were once considered ‘subhuman’ or ‘non-innocent’ or were otherwise excluded from the safety of the murder taboo, the scope of ‘murder’ grows wider and more inclusive. Hence, the illusion that there is some ‘universal morality’ towards which all cultures and societies are headed.


I think that the base principle upon which these others are rooted is one of ‘do no harm to your fellow man’. It shows up as the Wiccan Rede ‘An it harm none…’, as K’ung-Fu-Tze’s maxim ‘Do not do unto others…’, as Hillel’s Rule ‘What is evil to you do not do…’, as the Golden Rule ‘Do unto others…’, as the Christian principle of ‘Love thy neighbor…’. Even Lib’s and Polycarp’s ‘Love is All’ (my paraphrasing).

Name any ethical system and it will have some version of this concept. So if there’s any ‘universal’ universal principle, that would be it. As with all of the more specific injunctions, however, it always depends on the definition and meaning of ‘your fellow man’. The wider that definition, the more inclusive and more ‘universal’ the morality.


Did I actually say all that? How verbose! Ah well, you asked. Did it help any?

Questions or problems? Arguments or disagreements? Responses? Please? Anyone?


This message brought to you by the Practical Anarchist sect of the Antidenominational Existential Eclectic Zen Agnostic. See sig line for further details.

Thanks Lib, APB, and retail23 for the replys. A few comments:

APB - while I agree with you, how would one determine what those universal morals were? I want to be able to counter arguments by those that claim that ALL moral values are derived from cultural values and, hence, relative - with the implication being that, therefore, no one can justifiably criticize the moral values of another culture.

redtail23 -

[QUOTE]

I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ as handed down from on high.
Agree completely - my OP may have given the implication that this is what I believe, but I do not.

[QUOTE]

I do not believe in a ‘universal morality’ towards which we (all peoples of the earth) are tending.

I do think that there are universal principles without which any particular society or culture can not long survive.

I think a stronger case can be made for believing in a universal morality if your second sentence were reworded to read “universal principles without which all of humaity can no longer survive”. At least it would help me in arguing a case for cultural relativism/moral universalism.

Overall, the replies helped clarify my thoughts on this matter greatly.

Two more possible “universal values”:

1 / Truth-telling

Show me a society that can exist without placing a moral value upon honesty and I’ll spit in your face. Unless you’re bigger and/or harder than me, of course.

2 / Protection of infants

Again, I doubt there’s a society around that doesn’t place a value on protecting its young. Even societies that allow some to die to help ensure the survival of others would fit this idea. A society that failed to place a priority on survival of infants wouldn’t last for many years.

Absolutely! They just prevent you from claiming to know for sure what those immutable laws of univeral morality are.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ahunter/RFvLitCrit/tocandtp.html

Yes