Many people have claimed that although they by definition are separate, cultural relativism about morality and simple subjectivism can be objected to in the exact same way. In order to see the similar objections and attempt to defend the theories, they must first be looked at separately for clarification about each theory before they can be compared and contrasted. In this paper I will first look in small detail at the idea of cultural relativism, then look in the same way at simple subjectivism. After explaining each theory, I will then show the objections that are often used to negate both of these ideas, before finally responding to the objection in defense of cultural relativism. By doing this I will be able to prove my thesis of this paper that the objections raised, just like they do with simple subjectivism will disprove the idea of cultural relativism as solid grounds for determining moral rules.
The idea of cultural relativism is that there is no set standard for what is right and what is wrong, the ruling on this issue comes down to the culture involved. Quoting sociologist William Graham Sumner, Rachels writes, "In the folkways, whatever is, is right" (18). That is cultural relativism goes against near all other theories on morality and claims that there is no universal way of knowing right and wrong. The moral truth does not come from anywhere else besides how an action is taken in one's own culture. Also unlike most other theories, cultural relativism reflects one's own beliefs. A cultural relativist living in America for example would be against genital mutilation as it is not thought of as a benefit to or accepted by his culture; while a cultural relativist on behalf of the Bantu tribe in Africa would be for it as it is commonly accepted among his own ...