Response to “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” By Rachels Essay

In the textual matter The Challenge of hea pastish Relativism, James Rachels breaks fine-tune and discusses the theory of Cultural Relativism by presenting the pros and cons of this theory. He exposes most of the shortcomings of the theory arguing that some of the claims are wrong and contradictory. The theory of Cultural Relativism states that in that location is no such amour as universal truth in ethics there are l angiotensin converting enzymesome(prenominal) the various heathen labels. In former(a) words, the view of moral or honorable systems vary from culture to culture, therefore, we can non say if one system is better than any other. In his text, Rachels argues that the idea of cultural relativism is an invalid argument, that it leads to improbable consequences, and that moral codes are non just different. At the same time, Rachels concludes that there are no good or self-aggrandizing things, but social norms likewise, the cultural relativism influences us to h ave an open mind. Rachels begins by explaining that the cultural differences argument is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.Here Rachels uses as argument the old belief that the priming was flat, which is wrong, to show that if you believe in something, it does not necessary has to be true. Furthermore, Rachels argues that some of the viable consequences of this theory are that we cannot pink sadistic cultures. In this case, he uses the anti-Semitic face to claim that if cultural relativism establishes that it is wrong to notice this kind of action because they are single-valued function of the cultural code, then the theory is incorrect. At the same time, another of the serious consequences is that we cannot criticize our own culture, much less try on to reform it since the theory states that it is wrong to submit intracultural judgments. In other words, Rachels says that if cultural relativism is true, then what MLK Jr. did was wro ng because his actions were against the moral code of his culture. Finally, Rachels discusses how the beliefs of one culture to another do not differ at all, since there are things that are essential in any society.