Does Cultural Relativism Have Practical Implications?

Cultural relativism, as presented by Russ Shafer-Landau in his work, The Fundamentals of Ethics, argues that a "moral judgement is true because it correctly describes what a society really stands for" (300). Rather, if relativism is true, then actions are moral if a society says it is moral.  This theory is in support of skepticism in that it argues morality as a human invention.  In other words, if our species were to cease to exist, so would morality.  Given morality is a human invention, where does moral authority stem? According to relativists, it stems from society.



This theory clearly has negative implications when put to the test of a universal moral authority.  For instance, relativism implies that each society is morally infallible.  The clear problem with a morally infallible society is that beliefs of a society can be seeded in prejudice, sexism, or racism.  For example, it would not only be morally permissible for slavery to exist in the United States, but it would be the a moral duty of all citizens in this society to uphold these institutions. Another clear issue with cultural relativism is that each society's moral beliefs are considered equal.  The problem here is "what it means in practice is that social codes that treat women or ethnic minorities as property are just as morally attractive as those that don't.  That's not an easy thing to accept" (296). The final problem with cultural relativism that I will address is a further issue with moral infallibility. If a society is morally infallible, then social progress is impossible. Relativism cannot explain a change in beliefs because they by definition cannot be wrong.  So, while beliefs can change, it would not be seen as progress in society, for example away from sexism, but rather an adoption of a new truth.

While it seems clear that cultural relativism is not a sound theory to base all moral beliefs, it still may help us account for differences in cultures.  For instance, the National Geographic series, Taboo, discusses cultural practices which may be considered wrong or inappropriate to speak of in our society, but are normal and celebrated practices in others.  Episode 15 of season 9 labeled, "Old Enough?", discusses a specific instance of a young girl in Patan, Nepal who is declared a living goddess.  It is Hindu tradition in Nepal to declare a prepubescent girl as the new Kumari.  She will serve as Kumari until her first menstrual cycle when she will then be seen as a mere mortal.  It is believed that the Kumari is a goddess come to flesh to physically be with Her worshipers.  While in Nepal, it is seen as a great honor to be declared the Kumari, it may have serious implications on the social wellbeing of the young girl selected.  She is only allowed outside a few days of the year and must have limited contact with everyone, including her family.  She is not allowed to show any emotion and is visited by worshipers most hours of every day.  Only recently were Kumaris allowed to receive an education, but once released from their duties, it is often difficult to assimilate back into society.  For example, it is believed that a man who marries a former Kumari will die by coughing blood. So, while those who do not practice this type of Hinduism may see this tradition as oppressive to the young girl chosen as the Kumari and possibly cruel, it is greatly celebrated by the culture and religion.  Dr. Brenda Dobia of the School of Education with the University of Western Sydney explains the tradition as "focalizing that Goddess energy in a way that enables lots and lots of people to feel like the goddess is actually there for them. This is the key part of this tradition that the goddess can come to us in human form and be there for us".  A young Nepalese girl explains "I think the Kumari tradition is a good one because it's our culture.  A human being can't exist without a culture. People have a good feeling even getting a chance to meet the Kumari".

So, how does cultural relativism help explain the morality of a celebrated religious tradition that is so many years old, but current Westerners may construe as cruel to the young girl chosen as the Kumari.  Cultural relativism at surface level can be seen as having practical implications in helping us deal with these cultural differences.  However, as explained above, cultural relativism takes a step past acceptance and tolerance of other cultures into the realm of the morally infallible.  Cultural relativism supports a skeptic view about morality, so it argues that morality is a human construct. So, who is to say what is is and is not moral? We've seen that it cannot be determined by cultures because there are obvious disagreements about morality, and where there are disagreements, cultural relativism gives no suitable answer.  Thus, it cannot be determined by a single group of people. So, it seems that there must be an absolute sense of morality.  But where does it come from? Until we have a solution for absolute morality, those that support cultural relativism as an open minded principle rather simply need to take a critical look at their own social location to further understand and critically evaluate other cultural traditions.  Critical, educated, and informed assessment of the morality of cultural traditions may be the only way for moral progress to occur while upholding cultural sensitivity.