Universalism & Cultural Relativism

DP Barrett - Universalism & Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism and Universalism are both metaethicaltheories, which means that they do not seek to tell anyone which specific things are actually right or wrong, but rather, they seek to explain the nature and character of how morality works. In particular, the debate centres around whether there is a single moral code that all human beings should be living by, or whether there is a variety of moral codes, each one linked to a particular culture.

Moral Variation

If we look at the world we can see that there is a large amount of variation in the way that different societies or cultures think that people should behave. In Britain abortion is legal, whereas in Ireland it is illegal. Britain forbids euthanasia whereas Switzerlandallows it in the form of assisted suicide. In Christianity a man can only have one wife, whereas in Islam men are allowed up to four. Christianity allows alcohol to be consumed, whereas Islam forbids it and in some Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabiaalcohol is actually illegal. In ancient Romeslavery was a normal practice and seen as natural, but nowadays it is banned by international law and freedom is seen as natural. Today in Britain homosexuality is not a crime and there is widespread support for gay marriages, whereas just over 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal and could mean a jail sentence, and in Uganda it still carries the death penalty. In various parts of Africa and Asia female circumcision is practiced, whilst throughout Europe this is viewed as barbaric, sexist, harmful, and wrong. Meanwhile, male circumcision is generally seen as acceptable and is regularly practiced by Jews and Muslims, as well as being widespread throughoutAmerica.

It is more than true to say that moral views and practices vary throughout the world, however, this is merely a matter of descriptive ethics, and descriptive ethics does not tell us what is actually right and wrong, it only tells us what people believe is right and wrong. The real question is: how should we react to these differences? Consider Aisha, an Afghan woman. At the age of 12 she was forced to marry a Taliban fighter, who regularly beat her and forced her to sleep in a barn with animals. After several years of this abuse she ran away. Her husband tracked her down and mutilated her as a punishment, cutting her nose and ears off and leaving her for dead. He saw this as justified because she had shamed him. She went to relatives for help, and some of them actually turned her away saying that she deserved her punishment for dishonouring her husband. In Britain this kind of behaviour would lead to the man be imprisoned for life, but how should we react when we see such behaviour in foreign cultures?

One reaction is to say “I think that is wrong, no one should ever be treated in such a way no matter where they happen to live, after all, she is a person just like me and I wouldn’t want to be treated like that!” This is the reaction that universalist would take. Meanwhile, a cultural relativist would probably say“you can’t expect non-western people to live by western rules, in Afghan culture such actions are considered acceptable, so the man did nothing wrong.”

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism states that morality has its origins in society and culture. Each culture has developed its own moral code, and a person is only obliged to follow the rules of his or her own culture. Cultural relativism sees morals as inter-subjective, meaning that morals are decided on a group level. Under cultural relativism what is moral for a person to do is essentially what is most popular or traditional in their group, and therefore what is moral for society A need not be moral for society B. The implication is that there is no universal moral code which applies to all cultures, what is wrong in one place might be right elsewhere.

Cultural relativists accept moral variation between different societies, and would argue that the rules of a society only apply to the people in that society and not to anyone else. If a British person were to say “Aisha’s husband is a horrible man, who did the wrong thing, and should be punished” then he is essentially expecting Afghan people to follow British rules which simply do not apply to them. When it comes down to it, all he is doing is expressing the opinions that have been instilled into him by his culture, and these have no relevance to people from different cultures.

An analogy with sports is appropriate for helping us to understand the cultural relativist perspective: in basketball you may run with the ball and bounce it, whilst in netball a player must stand still and cannot bounce the ball, instead he or she may only pivot and pass. A basketball player is obliged to follow the rules of basketball, and the rules of any other sport are irrelevant to him and do not apply. It would be nonsense for a netball player to look at a basketball match and say“they shouldn’t be moving with the ball, they’re wrong.” Cultural relativists take a similar view with morals, it is nonsense for a Christian to say “Muslims should only have one wife” and likewise, Muslim cannot say “Christians should not drink alcohol.” In doing this you are judging that other culture by a set of rules which does not apply to them, and which they have no obligation to follow.

Cultural relativists would argue that you cannot make statements such as “slavery is wrong”, all you can say is “in Britainslavery is wrong” and you can just as easily say “for a Roman it was right and good to have slaves.” Cultural relativists would argue that a universal moral code simply does not exist, and that morality is a product of culture and tradition, therefore, just as there are many different cultural lifestyles, so too there are many different moral codes and they are all equally valid. These moral codes are ‘equally valid’ because they all have the same worth and status, we cannot in truth say that one society’s moral principles are better or worse than any other society’s moral principles because there is no objective standard to measure them by and each is equally just the product of a culture. This means that people from one culture cannot judge the actions of people in a different culture as being right or wrong, and nor should they try to force their own way of acting on to that other culture.

Universalism

Universalism is the opposite metaethical view from cultural relativism, and states that right and wrong are not based on culture or society at all. Moral rules transcend cultural boundaries and apply to everyone; there is only one correct moral code and all people should live by it, regardless of their society or culture. The implication is that in many cases societies are following the wrong moral principles, and they need to change. According to this view morals are objective and therefore they are not human inventions or linked to traditions, popularity, or any other such subjective factor, they are facts that apply equally to all people at all times.

The view that universalists take on moral truths can be likened to the way we look at science. In scientific matters we take the view that there is only one truth, and that this truth applies to everyone. Western medical science states that rhino horns have no medicinal benefits whatsoever, after all, they are merely composed of the same material as hair and fingernails. Meanwhile, traditional Chinese medicine states that rhino horns can cure various diseases, and because of this many rhinos are illegally killed each year to meet Chinese demands. In scientific matters like this we would assume that one view was correct and the other incorrect, we would not allow for both to be correct since human physiology and the laws of chemistry are the same everywhere. Universalists hold this approach to morality – that there are moral facts which apply in all places and to all people.

Universalism does not state which particular things are right and wrong, only that whatever the moral laws are they are the same everywhere. If euthanasia is morally good then it should be allowed everywhere, meanwhile, if euthanasia is wrong then it should be allowed nowhere. A British person who was a universalist would probably say that the treatment of women in countries such as Afghanistan by the Taliban was disgraceful, and that Afgahan laws and practices need to change. Meanwhile, an Afghan Taliban who was a universalist might well argue that we westerners give our women too much freedom and that we too should be forcing them to be obedient, and punishing them when they are not. Universalism does not tell us which specific things are right or wrong, it merely says that whatever is right is right for everyone, and whatever is wrong is wrong for everyone.

One point to make clear is that universalists are not saying that there should be no cultural variations at all, they are not, for instance, saying that we should all speak the same language, listen to similar music, eat the same food, wear the same clothes, and so on. The important factor is morality, how we treat ourselves and other people. Universalists are only concerned with issues such as abortion, honour killings, and arranged marriages. Some Universalists might argue that we can tolerate minor moral variations, such as allowing some societies to have polygamy or to banning alcohol, the important thing is that basic rights are protected and that big issues such as slavery or killing are tackled.

In Support of Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism says that morals are down to culture. It is difficult to precisely define what a culture is, even though it is easy to recognise them, because a culture is a complex mixture of a society’s traditions, laws, lifestyle, religion, perspective, and public opinion. The following statements are from philosophers in support of cultural relativism:

“My thesis is that morality arises when a group of people reach an implicit agreement or come to a tacit understanding about their relations with one another.”

Gilbert Harman, Moral Relativism Defended

“The child is born in to a living world… he grows with his world, his mind fills and orders itself… He learns to speak, and here he appropriates the common heritage of his race… and it carries in to his mind the ideas and sentiments of the race… and stamps them in indelibly.”

FH Bradley, My Station and its Duties

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.”

Alfred North Whitehead

Some people support cultural relativism because they see it as a philosophy based on tolerance or appreciation of other cultures and other lifestyles, a kind of‘each to their own’ perspective. Think of languages, I have grown up speaking English, whilst millions of others have grown up speaking French, or Spanish, or Chinese. Surely all of these languages are as good as each other, all of them allowing for communication of all possible ideas and emotions, so it would be nonsense for me to say “English is better than all other language, so you need to stop speaking your native tongues and start speaking English instead.” Under cultural relativism morality becomes like this, each culture has its own morality, and each morality is equally good and valid, so each culture should continue following its own moral code. In this way cultural relativism stands against ethnocentrism, the view that your own culture is superior to all others, because cultural relativists argue that all cultures and their moral codes are equally valuable and valid. Cultural relativism also stands against cultural imperialism, which is where one culture forces its own way of doing things onto another, something which has happened repeatedly throughout history with conquering nations forcing their language, lifestyle, religion, and morality onto the conquered. Cultural relativists would say that outsiders have no authority to judge or interfere with foreign cultures, and no reason to think that other cultures need to be ‘improved.’

In Support of Universalism

Universalism gets its support from a wide variety of sources, with many different schools of philosophy claiming that morality is objective, and therefore universal.

Immanuel Kant thought that whatever is right must be universalisable, meaning that something is only morally correct if we could allow everyone in the world to do it. Suppose you want to kill someone who has offended you, you must ask “would it be acceptable for everyone to act in this way?” Kant would say that a rational person would realise that it was not acceptable, after all, we have all insulted people at one time or another and if this rule were to be a universal law none of us would be safe, so no rational person would want everyone to act in this way. Essentially, if I don’t want others to act in a certain way, then I cannot do it myself. Kant based his morality on rationality, and he was of the opinion that rationality was universal, therefore leading to a universal morality that is the same for all people. It was also his belief that we are all equal in being rational agents, so each person deserves the same treatment no matter who they are or where they live.

Religious ethics are characteristically universalist. The belief is that God has created all of us, and that he has given us rules on how to live, rules that he wants all of mankind to follow, not just those who happen to follow a particular religion. Christians will argue that all human beings should be following the Ten Commandments, not just those who are Christians: they would say that whether you recognise it or not, there is a God who has given you orders that you are obliged to obey. If you honestly believe that God does not want people to have abortions or to undergo euthanasia then you have to believe that these commandments apply to all of God’s creations, not just those few who acknowledge these commandments.

The Greek philosopher Platowas a universalist as he believed that moral truths came from the Forms, timeless truths which exist outside of space and time, and which are immune to change and human opinions. Plato made a distinction between the things in the physical realm, which are all imperfect and changeable, and in the non-physical realm of the Forms, where they are perfect and unchanging. For instance, there are many ‘circles’ in the world, but if we look closely each is imperfect. Plato believed that there was a perfect Form of a circle which existed in a non-physical fashion, and it is this Form of The Circle which mathematicians contemplate in their investigations, and it is our mind’s awareness of The Circle which allows us to recognise circles in the physical world. For Plato moral truths were as real and objective as mathematical truths. There are Forms which dictate what is good and what is not, for instance The Form of The Man defines what the perfect human being ought to be like (brave, wise, temperate, just, etc.) and we can judge how good a person is by how closely they resemble the Form. The highest Form is The Form of The Good, which defines goodness itself and allows for objective judgements about what is good and what is not.

The idea of a single human nature is a good basis for universalist views, because if we are all similar then it might be inferred that we should all act in similar ways. The whole world over it is roughly the same actions which make people happy or unhappy, and we have similar hopes and dreams. No one wants to be killed, enslaved, or abused, and just about everyone wishes to be respected, educated, housed, healthy, and so on. This indicates that similar modes of behaviour would be needed everywhere to ensure prosperity and harmonious living, and to avoid social chaos, disharmony, and misery. This is the view taken by Utilitarians, who hold that the utility principle is an objective measure for the rightness of actions which should be used in all nations to decide moral matters. Utilitarians are against slavery, sexism, torture, and the death penalty because they would argue that these actions cause misery no matter where they are found, and they are in favour of welfare provision for all.

A popular reason for people to be in favour of universalism is human rights. Many people believe that each human being deserves respect, and that this respect means not harming them, and that it means helping them where possible. Therefore people should not be killed, imprisoned, or tortured, and they should not be denied free speech or education, and where possible they should be helped with education, food, shelter, and healthcare. This is a thoroughly universalist notion, for a cultural relativist would have to say that the only rights a person has are those which his or her society give to him, which in some cases would be none.

Another point in favour of universalism is the possible existence of trans-cultural moral principles, moral ideas that are found everywhere. It seems that rules such as ‘do not kill’ are found in every society, and with good reason, since a society that had no limitations on killing would surely collapse. There are differences of course, because all societies allow killing in some circumstances, the differences is just when. For some societies killing is only allowed in order to save innocent lives, whereas for others it is allowed as punishment as well, or to end suffering. However, the fact that killing is always limited indicates a similar basic morality around the world, and a similar attitude about life having value. Another seemingly trans-cultural moral principle is the ‘Golden Rule’ – treat others the way you wish to be treated. This principle is found in every major religion the whole world over. Of course there are also variations, for example, it has often been the case that the golden rule is only applied to those who are recognised as equal with oneself, so (for instance) men might treat other men well, but not women and children or animals, or it might be applied to citizens but not to slaves, or the poor, or foreigners. However, the same basic principle is there and arguably if we encourage people to give it greater priority then it could help to bring about a universal morality whereby it is recognised that slavery, rape, torture, murder, and such like cannot be right anywhere, after all, none of us want these things to happen to us.

Problems With Universalism

There are a variety of problems with universalism, which lead people to the conclusion that there cannot be a universal and objective code of morality. Two problems are particularly difficult for universalists to tackle: where these objective morals could come from and how we can know them.

1) The Epistemological Problem

One major problem with universalism is epistemological, that is, it is a knowledge problem. Universalism says that rules should be the same everywhere, so let’s imagine that all the nations in the world sat down to decide what these rules should be. Suppose we have two countries and that both are adamant that their point of view is correct; country A says that abortion should not be allowed anywhere in the world because all human life is sacred, and because it is a duty for all women to be mothers. Meanwhile, country B says that a foetus is not a human life, it is just a developing collection of cells with no consciousness, and moreover, that women ought to have personal liberty over their own bodies and futures. Which country is correct? What should the universal rule be? It seems that both arguments make a great deal of sense from different perspectives: each is perfectly valid. But how can we ever know which is actually correct? Isn’t it more likely that each country will never accept the other country’s point of view and will simply stick to their own view? It seems that if there is an objective standard of morality then we have no access to it, we cannot tell what actually is right or wrong. All we have access to is our own feelings and points of view, which have largely been ingrained in to us by socialisation, and therefore are relative.

2) The Ontological Problem

The word‘ontological’ means ‘to do with being’, so ontology is about the true nature of things. Universalism relies on the existence of a universal moral code, but what kind of existence or nature could a code like this have? Think about Plato’s Forms – is it really credible to say that things such as these exist and that they have some kind of authoritative power to tell us how we ought to live our lives? To a philosopher such as JL Mackie the idea is laughable. Another potential source of objective morality would be God, an authoritative commander who has created us and told us how to live, but we cannot be sure that any such God exists, and even if he does, serious problems can be raised with the idea that God can be responsible for morality. Similar problems are to be found with other possible sources of an objective moral law, so it may well be that objective morals do not exist, since there is nothing for them to be based on, they have no possible foundation or origin. Meanwhile, the idea that morals could come from human beings, in particular from society, seems to make a lot of sense, especially given the need for societies to have rules in order for them to function, and the fact of variation around the world. Cultural relativism seems to have empirical support, whereas universalism seems to have none at all.

Problems With Cultural Relativism

Although there are many reasons to support cultural relativism, the thesis also has many problems and to many minds it is a deeply worrying moral perspective.

1) Cultural Relativism means that evil acts can be good

The most common argument against cultural relativism is that it can make evil and intolerable actions good and acceptable. The Mayans used to perform human sacrifices, they would literally kill thousands of people to bless their temples with blood and offer their lives up to the gods. The Romans had millions of slaves and treated them like dirt, working them to death, killing them in the most painful of ways for the most minor of misdemeanours, and making them fight to the death in public arenas for the sake of entertainment. Cultural relativism says that if these societies think these actions are good, then they are good. Universalists will counter argue that these actions are intrinsically evil and that they cannot possibly be good no matter whether a society approves of them or not, so if cultural relativism says they can be good, then cultural relativism must be wrong.

Though this is the most often stated argument it is in fact the weakest because it simply presumes universalism – it presumes that there is an objective standard of right or wrong according to which these actions are evil. Cultural relativism simply denies that there are any standards other than ones created by people, so effectively making this point is like having the following argument: “Morals are objective.” “No they’re not.” “Yes they are.” “No they’re not.” Saying that these actions are objectively wrong is not evidence for universalism, it is simply a presumption of what you’re trying to prove in the first place.

2) Cultural Relativism makes morals fickle and changeable

A stronger point to be made against Cultural Relativism is that it leads to morality being fickle: morals are not set, they can just change like the tides of the seas: as public opinion changes, so too does what is right. This means that if a culture or society approves of honour killings, or torture, or vendetta murders then these things become right and good, and if I challenge these things in my society then I am automatically wrong because I am going against the accepted morality. However, if I run a successful campaign and manage to chance the general views of the population all of a sudden I become right. Morals are not meant to be so fickle and changeable, but cultural relativism makes them so, so relativism must be wrong.

However, again this objection merely presumes that morals are objective and so are not subject to human factors and changeable. Cultural relativists can simply deny this and claim that these human factors are the foundation of morality: morals are based on human perspectives, feelings, and traditions, and these vary from place to place and over time.

3) Cultural Relativism and tolerance – a contradiction?

It can be argued that cultural relativism harbours a contradiction. At one point it is saying that there are no trans-cultural or universal moral principles that all people should follow, then the next minute it seems to be saying that we should be tolerant towards other cultures and their practices, and that we should not interfere with them or try to ‘improve’ them. Surely this endorsement of tolerance is a universal moral rule that cultural relativists are expecting everyone to follow, and yet cultural relativism says there are no universal moral rules. Thus cultural relativism is inconsistent and contradictory.

This criticism can be easily defended against, because a relativist need not endorse tolerance. Cultural relativism simply states that morality is based upon culture, so it is describing how morality works within a society. It says nothing about how morality should work between societies, i.e. how they should interact, be it with tolerance or without. Cultural relativism cannot and does not dictate how anyone should act. It says that morality is a product of society, so if I live in a society that endorses foreign conquest and cultural imperialism, then oddly enough, that become the ‘right’ way for me to act. Strictly speaking, a cultural relativist looking at the way European colonisers forced their religion, morals, and practices onto the nations they conquered would have to say that these colonists were doing what was right by the standards of their times, so we should not judge them for it.

When a European looks at the way women are treated in some parts of Asia he might think “those people are doing the wrong thing, I must change them.” Cultural relativism simply points out that this judgement is factually incorrect, they are only acting wrongly by western standards, not by their own, and there is no particular need to them to be changed. They are not acting in a worse manner, only in a different manner. Realising this may make us more tolerant, but it doesn’t have to.

4) Cultural Relativism is contradictory, like all forms of relativism.

A bog standard criticism of any kind of relativism goes as follows: according to relativism all moral statements are relative, which means that they are sometimes true and that they are sometimes false. Therefore, relativism itself must be sometimes true and sometimes false. Hence relativism is false. After all, the statement “all morals are relative” is a non-relative statement, so it attacks itself and contradicts itself.

However, this criticism is based on an over-simplification of what relativism is about. The word ‘relative’ simply means ‘relational’ or ‘dependent.’ Cultural relativists are simply saying that which actions are right and which are wrong relates to your culture, and depends on your society. Cultural relativism is saying “the correct thing to do, whether it is x or y, depends on what your society says about it.” This statement is not contradictory in any way, and it certainly does not attack itself.

5) Multiculturalism?

We now live in a multi-cultural world, where mass migration has meant that each society is not a single entity with a single culture. In London you will find people from all over the world, from every continent, from every religion, from every race, speaking every language, and so on. Even in the past you would struggle to find uniformity, Britain, for example has several indigenous cultures (Welsh, Scottish, English, Cornish, Manx, Protestant, Catholic, etc). Thus an important question becomes, how should people act when they move from one culture to another? Should a Sudanese Muslim who comes to the UK assimilate and follow British rules? Or should Britain recognise that this person is from another culture and allow him to live in his own way? In Sudan a large amount of women undergo female circumcision; this can take several different forms, but it generally includes the removal of the clitoris (thus causing pain and preventing sexual pleasure), and it can also include sewing up the vagina so that virginity is enforced until the person is married, at which point they are torn open. This practice is illegal in Britain, so should we say that people from other cultures are allowed to practice it here, or should we say that they must conform to our rules?

This is an often raised issue of cultural relativism, but it is a criticism that cannot be easily answered, it is in many ways a grey area. Cultural relativism tells us how morals work within a group (morals being a product of that group, being nothing more than behaviours expected within that group), but it provides no easy answers for how groups should interact. Perhaps the best answer it could give is that the British community must decide how those who join it are to act, whether they are to assimilate or not. Whether assimilation is required or not is, like all other moral issues, down to a society to decide for itself, and if one supports assimilation and the other does not, neither can criticise the other.

6) How do you define a culture?

This is perhaps the biggest problem for cultural relativism. It seems to assume that each culture is homogenous and uniform, for example, that every person in Irelandis a Catholic and therefore that their entire society is against abortion and that this is why it is wrong and illegal in their society. But this just simply is not the case. Some people in Ireland are Catholics, but others are Protestants whose churches offer a different teaching. Meanwhile, some may be atheists and therefore feel that what a church says on the issue is neither here nor there, or they may be Catholics and disagree with the teaching of their Church. People do not simply blindly follow the practices and points of view that they were raised with. Large amounts of people think for themselves and make their own decisions based on conscience, emotion, personal experiences, and the arguments they may have come across from other influences. It’s all very well to say “if you’re a Muslim you may have four wives” but what if you are a Muslim who has grown up in Londonsurrounded by Christians, atheists, Jews, Hindus, and so on? What if you are half white and half Chinese? And what effect does it have on your moral point of view if you are working class or middle class, old or young, a man or a woman, and so on? Should we say that those in the countryside are a different culture from those in the city, and therefore that city dwellers should have no say whatsoever on whether fox hunting is allowed or not? And what about your friendship groups, what role do they play? If your yobbish mates think it is brave and exciting to mug someone does that mean that in your ‘sub-culture’ it’s the right thing to do? If your mates like to go to raves and take ecstasy, does that mean it is right for you too, or should you be listening to your parents who raised you to think drugs were bad?

It was earlier said that a culture is composed of elements such as tradition, religion, environment, perspective, and public opinion, but how can we balance these things? What if tradition dictates that you do not have sex before marriage, but public opinion dictates that there is nothing wrong with it? More often than not the morals of a society are not the group opinion, but are the opinions of a privileged few, such as those who have the money, the government, those who control the media, or those who are the leaders of the local religion. More and more it seems to feel that there is no simple solid thing as‘society’ to be following the dictates of, society is a nebulous thing which has no essence, in which case we end up with everyone basically makes their own minds up. In short then, Cultural Relativism seems to take us down the road towards Subjectivism, whereby morals are personal and anything goes. Essentially, cultural relativists are trying to base morals on something which has a flimsy existence at best.

The only way to have a homogenous ‘culture’ where everyone sees things in exactly the same way is to enforce a way of life upon them, as the Roman Catholic Church did to those in the Middle Ages, and the Taliban did to people of Afghanistan. Can this really be the crux of morality? It begins to seem that Cultural Relativism takes us down a slippery slope towards Moral Anti-Realism whereby morals are just an invention and we have no real reason to follow them at all, except of course that it may be personally beneficial sometimes to do so.

7) Why Do What Society Says?

According to Cultural Relativism the right actions to take are those which are approved of or traditional in your society, and the wrong actions to take are those which are disapproved of in your society, or which are against tradition. A member of a society ought to follow the rules of his society, and not pay any heed to the rules of another society, which has no application to him. But this leaves us with a huge question to answer: why do what your society says? Suppose your society says that you should not have sex before marriage – what is it that makes you obliged to follow this rule? Or suppose your society says that your parents should choose your spouse and that you should marry whomever you are told to – again, why should you have to do so? The same can be said for just about every other rule imaginable. If you have an obligation to obey society no matter what it says, then where did this obligation come from? Seemingly, cultural relativism depends on a blind obedience to what society or tradition wants us to do.

There are several possible justifications for the need for us to follow the rules that society dictates, of which I will focus on two. One is that since our society has nurtured us and made us who we are – educated and protected us and so forth –we ought to obey its rules out of gratitude and reverence for one’s motherland and its traditions. The second possibility is Social Contract Theory. According to Thomas Hobbes if there were no rules and we just did what we wanted all the time life would be intolerable:“nasty, poor, brutish, and short.” We need a society and rules, so it is in our interests to follow those rules. But more importantly we have ‘signed a contract’ saying that we will follow these rules, even if we have only done so tacitly. We have promised to obey the society which keeps us safe, and this makes us obliged to follow its rules. Neither of these views is without its philosophical problems, so we seem to still be left with the question of why an individual ought to follow what their culture or society says when they do not wish to.

Pluralism - A Possible Compromise?

Think for a moment about raising children. There are some people who take the view that there is only one way to properly raise a child, and that anyone doing it differently is just simply wrong. This view is comapable to universalism. We can easily see it is the wrong perspective when applied to child rearing because there are many different ways to raise children that can have good results, and each child is an individaul, so what will work with one child won't work with another. On the other extreme there are those who argue that there is no right way to raise a child, that parents can do it however they choose, a position which is comparable with cultural relativism. But again we can see this extrem position doesn't really work, as there are some terrible ways of raising children which lead to problems both in childhood and later life. Could we really say that a parent who gave their child crack to help them sleep was just doing it their own way, and that their way was just as valid as any other? Arguably not. This leads us to a middle position - pluralism. Pluralism says that there are many perfectly valid ways to do something without going so far as to say anything goes. With parenting we might say that there are dozens of perfectly good different ways to raise a child, but equally there are dozens of terrible ways. Similarly, pluralism in ethics can allow for there to be different moral codes, so long as certain minimum standards are met which prohibit certain ways of acting. For instance, a pluralist might say that countries can make their own minds up when it comes to whether alcohol is allowed or not, or whether men can have more than one wife, but that slavery or the death penalty cannot be tolerated anywhere. A view like this could be backed up by the aforementioned notions that human nature is roughly universal, after all, no matter what society a person is from there are certain things which will cause them pain and misery, so surely these are to be avoided everywhere, and likewise, because of human nature certain laws are bound to cause social disharmony and instability. The view could also be backed up with the idea of trans-cultural moral principles such as the golden rule, which are common to all cultures.

Conclusion

We can see that both Universalism and Cultural Relativism have their advantages and problems. Whilst the Universalist idea that all human beings should be treated well no matter where they are seems intuitively correct and is appealing, it seems difficult to give grounds to. Where could these universal and objective rules come from, and how can we know them? Does a universal human nature really exist? Perhaps human rights are not truths, they are just good ideas, good ideas we should encourage other nations to adopt, but which in truth they have no obligation to abide by? Meanwhile, Cultural Relativism seems tolerant, but it also seems unpalatable because it could allow for another Holocaust, but it does seem to have the evidence on its side –morals do vary from place to places and are largely passed on from generation to generation by socialisation. But it seems that society cannot be defined and that no one has a good reason to do exactly what their society dictates. It seems more likely to be true that morals are subjective to the individual and that they are merely influenced by culture, and if this is the case then effectively anything goes.