Cultural Relativism: morality is defined for each culture by what the majority in that culture believe in and practice. It is inappropriate to apply the rules of one culture to another.
*Sports Analogy: Not all sports are the same. They have different rules and it is inappropriate to apply one sport's rules to another sport. There is no game of sports in general. Each sport has its rules, but some do overlap (e.g. sportsmanship, competition, two opposing sides.)*
PROS OF THE THEORY
1. Respects other cultures.
2. Makes us less judgmental.
3. Makes less work: no agonizing over what's right and wrong. You would just take a poll in your culture to make a decision.
4. Helps countries get along.
5. Counteracts feelings of moral superiority: "holier than thou" attitude.
6. Has evidence from anthropology: different norms are held by different cultures (e.g. nudity taboo).
7. Opposes Eurocentrism (our way of life is best).
CONS OF THE THEORY
1."Majority rule" seems oppressive to the individual.
2. Aren't there corrupt cultures or corrupt cultural practices? (e.g. NAZI culture and killing, slavery in the U.S., shoddy treatment of women, "legalized bribery" in American politics, female genital mutilation or "circumcism")
3. No human rights; Only American rights, Swedish rights, Columbian rights, etc.
4. There is a difference between professed and actual morality.
5. Minority protest is always wrong.
(e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were immoral people)
6. Moral progress is impossible. Progress implies an ideal or objective standard which you're moving close to.
**Assignment:
Read Pojman pp.149-150,160-196 by Thurs.1-17