12) Does the problem of cultural relativism, as discussed by James Rachels, affect the soundness of any of the arguments for the existence of God? 13) Based on James Rachels’ article on cultural...

Running Head: Cultural Relativism        1
Cultural Relativism        12
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Table of Contents
Does The Problem of Cultural Relativism, As Discussed by James Rachels, Affect the Soundness of Any of The Arguments for The Existence of God?    3
Based On James Rachels’ Article on Cultural Relativism, Would You Say His Position Is Closer to Kant’s or Mill’s?    6
Based On the Article, 'Moral Saints, Do You Think Susan Wolf Is Closest to An Aristotelian? If So, How Might Her Position Differ from Aristotle's?    9
References    13
Does The Problem of Cultural Relativism, As Discussed by James Rachels, Affect the Soundness of Any of The Arguments for The Existence of God?
It is a simple reality that the majority of human beings are significantly different from the distinct set of values by which they live each day of their lives. Morals, in principle, compensate for social groups' aggregate beliefs through cultural relativism. There is no inherent right or incorrect notion of morality, as the concept of cultural relativism explains. People who accept the notion of cultural relativism passively, on the other hand, refuse to embrace the fact that it is acceptable to assess and challenge the opinions of others around them. Due to various overwhelming evidence in support of considerable moral growth in society and its eroding capacity to safeguard the people of our globe, I am willing to declare cultural relativism as an erroneous argument for the existence of no universal truths in my paper.
The word "cultural relativism" is defined by James Rachel, the creator of the movement, as "all cultural views are equally legitimate." When it comes to moral systems, no culture holds superiority or inferiority over another. In certain ways, all cultures and civilizations are encouraged to practice respect, tolerance, and harmony. While cultural relativism adheres to egalitarian values, it also demonstrates that not all cultures adhere to the same moral code and that truth is relevant to its cultural context. According to Rachel, “Cultural Relativism . . ., says . . ., that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics . . . [but] Moreover, our own code has no special status; merely [being] one among many" (36). Fundamentally, the values, norms, and actions that differ among cultures should be taken into account. It is difficult for a culture to merely evaluate another society's ethical principles as good or evil, regardless of how it regards its moral standards (Bowie, 2015). Even yet, to judge a society's standards of conduct and beliefs as inferior, all civilizations must freely submit to evaluating that society's moral principles in light of their own. First and foremost, there is no universal morality since what is deemed acceptable in one culture may be judged immoral in another, leaving no authority to assess one's beliefs and perspectives.
Although James Rachel has a lot of faith in his idea of cultural relativism, he only believes it to a certain level. He shows that human advancement is put into question in one of his contradicting interpretations of cultural relativism. He writes: “If the old ways were following the social standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would say it is a mistake to judge them by the standards of a different time. . . To say that we have made progress implies a judgment that present-day society is better, and that . . . according to Cultural Relativism, is impermissible.” (40)
    Societies will eventually adapt and alter to achieve more justice and equity for all. For example, elaborating on slavery, racism, and colonization, all three of the above activities were abolished throughout the last century. Once a group of analytical and critical minds concluded that these acts of tyranny and discrimination were not in the public's best interests, they were progressively phased out. Most people in modern society would agree that these developments have been beneficial to society. James Rachel, on the other hand, believes that such progress would not have been possible or sustained if a one-sided perspective of cultural relativism had prevailed.
    Much like James Rachel considers social evolution to be at odds with cultural relativism, the genuine issue with cultural relativism is how it fails to allow society to accomplish its basic function of protecting its citizens. Humans live in a society that values variety and tolerance. While the legal system is having a tougher difficulty formulating the laws, our court system is having a much more difficult time interpreting them, thanks to a shrinking number of objective criteria. Not alone is the court system in dire straits, but so is our moral code.
"Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature of morality," said Racheal. Pornography, exhibitionism, violence, and the rejection of God, which were previously considered sins, are now extensively promoted and championed. To put it another way, not all activities are equally good or evil. Some of them are demonstrably destructive at their core. In cultural relativism, the social and historical context conveys and avoids any judgment based on your culture. It is adequate in terms of description. On the other side, it is terrible for judging. To put it another way, some horrible crimes like slavery and the mass slaughter of Jews in concentration camps are justified because they are ethically acceptable in some societies. Objectivity is always required when judging by need. This means that to explain why an action should be dismissed, you must show why it is either harmful or ineffective.
    For instance, if I wish to refute Rachel's claim that all statements are similar, I should use his cultural relativism reasoning against him. You will still be mistaken if I hear that my solutions are predicated on the presumption that one of the answers is correct. Even if this idea has been illustrated as the only logical and possible outcome of thinking, it stands true so I can reason without presuming the necessity of a single answer, as opposed to some equations that have different answers for the rationale of differentiated possibilities to one clarification in the case of the establishment.
    While Rachel's...