Working Through Cultural Relativism in Practice
The idea that cultural norms alone determine what counts as right or wrong sounds clean on paper. In reality, applying it consistently creates immediate problems that most intro students miss. James Rachels laid this out clearly, but seeing how it actually breaks down requires more than reading a summary. I spent several years dealing with cross-cultural ethical frameworks professionally. The first time I encountered this, I was reviewing a policy document from a company operating in two different regions. Each region had conflicting standards about what constituted acceptable business practice. The initial assumption was simple: follow local customs. That assumption collapsed within a week.
The Challenge Of Cultural Relativism James Rachels
Rachels identified three core claims commonly made by cultural relativists. The first is that different cultures have different moral codes. This is empirically true. You can point to any number of practices across societies that directly contradict each other. The second claim is that there is no objective standard to judge one code against another. The third is that we should resist judging other cultures. Rachels dismantles each of these in sequence. The first claim is straightforward observation. The second claim is where things get philosophically thin. Rachels points out that acknowledging disagreement does not prove that no correct answer exists. People disagreed about the shape of the Earth. That disagreement did not make both views equally valid. The third claim follows from the second but introduces its own contradictions. If you cannot judge another culture, then you also cannot judge cultures that engage in genocide or systematic oppression. Most people find that conclusion unacceptable, which means they already reject cultural relativism in practice even while claiming to accept it theoretically.
There is a practical insight that beginners almost always miss. Cultural relativism is frequently used as a rhetorical shield rather than a genuine philosophical position. When someone invokes it, they are usually avoiding criticism of their own culture or deflecting external judgment. I saw this repeatedly in boardroom discussions. A practice would be defended by pointing to cultural tradition before anyone examined whether the practice itself was defensible on any grounds. My workaround for this pattern was simple and effective. Whenever cultural relativism came up, I asked for the specific moral principle the culture was invoking. Not the custom itself. The underlying principle. Usually, the principle was something recognizable like "protect family" or "maintain social order." Once you extract the principle, you can compare it across cultures and evaluate it using standard ethical reasoning. The relativist loses their shield because you are no longer asking whether a practice is "culturally acceptable." You are asking whether the principle justifying it holds up under scrutiny. Another counter-intuitive point: cultural relativism often overestimates how much moral variation actually exists across cultures. Rachels notes that most cultures share a core set of values. Prohibitions against murder, rules about truth-telling, obligations to care for children. These appear in virtually every society, even if the specific applications differ. The differences are more dramatic than the similarities, but the similarities are what actually sustain cooperation between cultures.
Get the Full Details
One significant weakness in Rachels' argument that often gets glossed over. He treats cultural relativism as if it is a coherent position before showing it to be incoherent. But many people who appeal to cultural relativism are not holding a carefully formulated philosophical doctrine. They are expressing a sentiment about tolerance and open-mindedness. Rachels correctly identifies that this sentiment can be weaponized to avoid moral scrutiny. Still, dismissing it entirely overlooks that the impulse behind it often comes from good intentions. If you are studying this material, the most useful exercise is not memorizing Rachels' points. It is identifying where cultural relativism shows up in your own life. Think about a time you heard someone say "that is their culture" to shut down criticism. That moment is where the theory meets reality, and the theory usually falls apart under that kind of pressure.
