Does cultural relativism equate to intercultural tolerance? In the eyes of “Ima Relativist,” the narrator of the counterpoint essay in Russ Shafer-Landau’s The Ethical Life, cultural relativism does just that: it facilitates understanding and mutual respect between vastly different cultures. Rather than adopting a staunchly black-and-white, “we’re right and you’re wrong” viewpoint, the theory accepts that morality is a social construction, thus shifting right and wrong to “different" (200). The elimination of objective right and wrong breeds tolerance, inhibits criticism and judgment, and builds a sense of solidarity amongst cultural majorities according to Ima (200).
However, Shafer-Landau’s retort sharply refutes Ima’s positive visions. The suggestion disallows the option of disagreeing with values of our society, prioritizes conformity over individualism and creates an uncritical and unthinking society (202). While Ima’s concept of the elimination of ‘right and wrong’ as well as judgment may seem like a launching pad for a more progressive and understanding society, Shafer-Landau counters that this viewpoint will actually prohibit society from learning from its mistakes (203). Without a definitive right and wrong, everyone can be right. If everyone is right, then mistakes will be inexistent and wrongs will never be assessed and reflected upon. Not only could Ima’s mindset dissuade from societal learning, according to Landau-Shafer, it would also mandate that “we couldn’t consistently disagree with the values of our society” (201).
While I do believe that Shafer-Landau’s arguments are both logically sound and valid points, I also think the spirit and concept of Ima’s attitude is, ultimately, an important factor of a successful intercultural interaction. Her argument obviously has some foundational flaws and thus should be taken with a grain of salt, but I believe that if we were to adopt Landau-Shafer’s suggestion that right and wrong should be more black-and-white, the imposition of your viewpoints on others would be justified. On the flipside, aside from changing the word “wrong” to “different,” cultural relativism does little in terms of “establish[ing] common norms between societies” (203).
An integration of the two attitudes would discourage excessive judgment of and discomfort with a difference of cultural attitude and perspective. Simultaneously, however, it would still allow for an inter-societal conversation and an openness of criticism to moral viewpoints that may seem questionable or inherently wrong in the eyes of other societies. As Shafer-Landau has been quick to point out throughout his book thus far, each argument for a potential moral foundation has both strong points and often, undermining arguments. Cohesion of concepts, while it may seem contradictory, would allow strong ideas to be heard without a disregard for the weak points. A total adoption or dismissal of one particular ideology dismisses the consideration for all strong and valid ideas that a more comprehensive and open point of view would facilitate.
Becca makes a great point here. The idea that cultural relativism is a more tolerant, judgement-free theory is one that many people find appealing. They view people judging others' morality as simply wrong and think it is best to allow others to do what their culture deems moral without questioning them. However, as Shafer-Landau points out in The Fundamental of Ethics, this would leave morals with no intrinsic value. Nothing would be seen as overall good because every cultural has a different opinion on the same topic (294). I agree with Becca that we should not judge others on our own moral standards, but I also believe that everyone should be judged on a universally set code of moral principles. This is where the ethical starting points Shafer-Landau directed to in the introduction come into play. There needs to be a few, general moral principles that all humans should most likely agree on that stand for someone to compare their personal morality to. This is why philosophy is important, and why a universal code of principles would create room for tolerance in interpretation, but also responsibility and justice to immorality.
ReplyDelete