Detractors of moral relativism, including the eminent philosopher Immanuel Kant, propound the existence of moral tenets that possess universal and objective validity, transcending individual or cultural paradigms. Kant's deontological ethical framework posits the presence of categorical imperatives, immutable moral principles that endure irrespective of situational context. Consider, for instance, the prohibition of acts such as murder and torture, widely deemed universally reprehensible due to their infliction of severe harm or death upon innocent individuals. These transgressions resonate with Kant's foundational principle, which advocates treating others as means to an end and as ends in themselves.
Articulated by critics like philosopher James Rachels, moral relativism stands vulnerable to logical incongruities. The contention that morality is wholly subjective engenders difficulties in appraising or adjudicating the actions of individuals or cultures without ensnaring itself in inherent contradictions. Rachels, for instance, contends that cultural relativism falters in its inability to furnish a basis for condemning practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), as doing so would necessitate the acceptance of the moral legitimacy of such practices within particular cultures, rendering moral relativism an untenable doctrine.
Intellectual luminaries like Martha Nussbaum criticise moral relativism for its potential to impede moral advancement by dissuading critiques of deleterious cultural practices. Nussbaum contends that the absence of a framework for assessing actions predicated upon objective ethical principles could lead societies to exhibit diminished enthusiasm for reforming and enhancing their ethical standards. Historically, practices like slavery and discrimination persisted for centuries due to their cultural endorsement, but moral progress transpired when individuals and societies began to perceive these practices as ethically abhorrent, a development at odds with the premises of cultural relativism.
Philosophers exemplified by John Rawls argue that moral relativism threatens to erode the foundations of human rights and justice systems, often premised upon universal principles. Rawls' theory of justice underscores the significance of a "veil of ignorance," a hypothetical scenario wherein individuals construct an equitable society without knowledge regarding their personal or cultural attributes. Advocates of human rights, animated by Rawls' insights, posit the existence of ethical standards with global applicability, irrespective of cultural divergences. Rejecting the existence of such universal values can engender formidable impediments when confronting challenges such as genocide, torture, or discrimination on the international stage.
Cultural relativism, subject to critique by feminist theorists like Martha Nussbaum, can stifle censure of practices within a culture that may inflict harm or oppression, particularly upon marginalised demographics. Nussbaum contends that cultural relativism may arrest societal development by inhibiting external scrutiny and internal introspection. This posture could potentially obstruct endeavours aimed at extirpating practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), which transgress individual human rights and well-being.
The critique articulated by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche underscores how cultural relativism can erode individual moral autonomy. Nietzsche posits that cultural relativism implies that individuals lack a foundation for interrogating their culture's values and practices. This, Nietzsche argues, proves detrimental to personal maturation and ethical refinement, as it discourages critical cogitation and the capacity to make informed moral decisions rooted in individual discernment.
The demarcation between tolerance and relativism, elucidated by luminaries such as Karl Popper, merits elucidation. Critics contend that while tolerance remains indispensable for fostering harmonious coexistence among diverse cultures, it need not encompass the wholesale acceptance of all cultural practices as morally equivalent. Popper's exposition of the "paradox of tolerance" posits that tolerance should not extend to practices that promulgate intolerance themselves. Consequently, it is plausible to be tolerant of diverse cultures without embracing a relativistic stance on morality, a stance positing all cultural practices as morally indistinguishable.
Scholars of human rights, exemplified by Amartya Sen, mount challenges against cultural relativism's compatibility with the concept of universal human rights and shared ethical values. Sen posits that certain principles, encompassing the right to life, freedom from torture, and equality before the law, should universally apply to all individuals, irrespective of their cultural milieu. Cultural relativism may, therefore, undermine endeavours aimed at safeguarding these fundamental human rights, for it suggests that cultural customs can exonerate breaches of these rights.
Cultural relativism engenders internal discord when confronting ethical quandaries underpinned by intercultural clashes. To illustrate, it becomes an onerous task to condemn practices such as child marriage or FGM when cultural relativism is carried to its acme, given that these practices may be deeply entrenched within specific cultural milieus. Such inconsistency complicates the resolution of grave ethical dilemmas and the protection of vulnerable individuals, particularly in instances where cultural practices transgress human rights and individual welfare.
