Cultural Relativism Explained: Definition, Dangers, and Impact

Moral relativism is the view that morality is up to the individual—each person has their own personal point of view and no point of view is better than another. This is compared to ice cream preferences, where different people have different tastes and no one flavor is objectively better. Moral objectivism is the opposite view that morality is more like insulin—there are right and wrong answers, and we discover moral truth rather than inventing it. The relativist view holds that we have a right to our own private morality and should not impose our views on others.

Moral objectivism holds that moral principles are objective facts that exist independently of human perception, similar to how health is an objective concept despite being difficult to precisely define; this is supported by the existence of clear moral distinctions (like genocide versus humanitarian acts) that suggest moral values are not merely subjective. In contrast, moral relativism argues that morality is relative to culture or individual perspective, but this position faces significant logical problems including the contradiction that if tolerance has no objective basis, then intolerance would be equally valid, and the fallacy of confusing descriptive observations (different cultures have different moral rules) with prescriptive conclusions (therefore no moral rules are better than others).

The video distinguishes between moral objectivism and moral relativism, arguing that moral objectivism (holding onto absolute moral values) prevents the problems that arise from moral relativism. The speaker suggests that becoming a moral relativist leads to accepting harmful beliefs and practices, while moral objectivism provides a foundation for resisting such influences.

If there are objective ethics, there must be a mind to define them. Moral anti-realism (the view that there are no objective ethical truths) is intellectually inconsistent because people cannot consistently live out moral relativism. When someone claims that one action is wrong and another is right, they are making an objective moral claim, which contradicts the position of moral relativism.

Moral relativism holds that morality differs between individuals or cultures, while moral objectivism claims that morality exists independently of human beliefs. The video argues that moral relativism breaks down when considering that if someone inflicts suffering on you, you would consider it wrong regardless of whether the perpetrator thought it was acceptable. The Outer Planes of D&D operate on moral objectivism—the universe knows what is truly good or evil, and a society that views harmful actions as good is not actually lawful good.

There is tension between universal human rights and cultural relativism: (1) Universal human rights instruments (like UNDRIP) recognize cultural diversity while maintaining core human rights protections; (2) However, some cultural practices (such as those that discriminate against women or people with disabilities) conflict with universal human rights standards; (3) The challenge is to balance respect for cultural diversity with protection of fundamental human rights; (4) International human rights instruments provide frameworks for addressing this tension; (5) The challenge is to ensure that cultural practices do not violate fundamental human rights while still respecting legitimate cultural diversity; (6) This requires careful analysis of specific practices and their impacts on vulnerable groups.

Historicidade means human rights are fruits of historical movements, progressively achieved over time. For example, women's rights evolved through various revolts, and some countries still restrict women's rights. Universalidade means human rights are destined for all people without discrimination, possessing territorial and universal scope. This confronts cultural relativism, which justifies violations based on local practices. The core idea is that every human being is entitled to rights regardless of culture or state laws, creating tension between respecting cultural sovereignty and upholding universal standards.

This segment examines tensions between universalist human rights frameworks and cultural relativism. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights conflicts with the UN Declaration on provisions regarding free speech on heresy or apostasy. Since law is grounded in culture and religion, creating universally accepted international laws that satisfy all traditions is practically impossible. The segment also discusses how UN rapporteurs have criticized Western governments (Canada, Britain) for budgetary policies during financial crises, illustrating how international bodies reinterpret treaties in ways that constrain democratic decision-making. This creates a fundamental tension between democratic sovereignty and supranational human rights enforcement.

There is tension between the universality of human rights and state sovereignty—the argument that states should be able to order their own affairs. However, within the human rights framework, there are certain minimum rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are undeniable, such as the right to life. While there is room for state sovereignty and different ways of realizing rights across cultures, the core rights remain universal. The most recent articulation of human rights flowed from the end of World War II, alongside clearer international consensus about how war should be conducted. These universal standards must be defended even when facing challenges to state sovereignty.

There is a fundamental tension between universal human rights norms and cultural context. Universal human rights can serve as an absolute floor that cannot be lowered, but different cultures organize themselves differently in relation to their environments. The experience of what people need to enjoy the freedom of religion may differ in different places, and societies and laws should be sufficiently capacious to manage these differences while maintaining the universal baseline.

Divine command theory holds that morality comes from religious authority—if one's religion declares something wrong, it is wrong. This theory faces interpretation difficulties (different adherents may disagree on scripture) and consistency problems (if moral interpretation changes, we face questions about whether actions were moral before or after the change). Natural law theory, developed by Thomas Aquinas, holds that morality comes from the natural order—things that conform to nature's order (survival, reproduction, growth) are morally right, while those that oppose it are wrong.

Historical ethical foundations include: power is right (Thrasymachus), morality is tradition, man is the measure (Protagoras), the golden mean (Aristotle), anti-nomianism (no objective right/wrong), hedonism (pleasure is good), egoism (self-benefit is good), and utilitarianism (greatest good for greatest number). Divine Command Theory holds that something is right if God wills it and wrong if God wills it otherwise. Natural Law theory argues moral truth exists independently of divine commands. Christian theology teaches harmony between general revelation (through nature and conscience) and special revelation (Scripture), with both being necessary and unified since God is the creator of both. The written Word is infallible and more explicit than natural law, making human responsibility greater.

There are two main views in Islamic theology regarding ethics: divine command theory (anything more than four wives would be unethical because God commands only four) and natural law theory (there is something intrinsically good or bad about actions regardless of divine commands). The speaker takes Aquinas's view, which aligns with the natural law position, arguing that goodness is the manifestation of God's goodness onto something, and if God's goodness is not in that thing, it is not good.

Divine Command Theory and Natural Law are two primary approaches among many for finding and applying universal moral values. Religion plays a significant role in discussions about moral values, and these two theories represent different ways of deriving moral standards from religious or natural sources.

Natural law is an expression of divine intelligence as manifested in rational creatures. It is called 'natural' because it is promulgated to and encoded in human nature as rational animals, and knowable through natural reason. Conceiving of natural law as law implies an authority—though one may conceive of the lawgiver differently. Natural law differs fundamentally from typical Divine Command Theory, which makes God's regulation extrinsic and seemingly arbitrary—as if God made creatures and then separately contrived rules. Natural law makes commands intrinsic to the creature—issued in and through the making of the creature to be the kind of creature it is. Natural law prohibitions against adultery, theft, and murder are bound up with our very nature as embodied social rational animals. John Paul II distinguished this as 'participated theonomy' (sharing in a law from God), contrasting it with autonomy (self-imposed law) and heteronomy (extrinsically imposed law). Far from needing prior knowledge of God to experience moral obligation, practical experience of moral obligation often leads people to knowledge of God and His Providence.

Cultural relativism is the idea that different cultures should be judged by their own standards rather than external ones. The video presents examples of cultural practices that may conflict with universal human rights, such as women being beaten for not wearing hijab, restrictions on women's education, and limited personal freedoms. The video creator argues that these practices should not be normalized or accepted as standards, and that different societies may have vastly different standards regarding personal freedom and bodily autonomy. The video also presents examples of cultural practices that may conflict with local norms, such as loudspeakers for religious calls to prayer in residential areas, highlighting the tension between cultural relativism and universal human rights.

This comprehensive segment explores the tension between cultural relativism and universal human rights across diverse societies. It examines practices ranging from Alak Kachu marriage abduction in Kyrgyzstan to Catalonia's gender-equality beach regulations, from India's banned baby throwing ritual to Female Genital Mutilation affecting over 230 million women globally. The segment also covers Maasai spitting traditions as positive cultural symbolism, honor crimes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and China's organ trafficking allegations. These examples demonstrate how cultural practices vary dramatically, with some persisting despite legal prohibitions due to deeply embedded social norms, while others constitute severe human rights violations requiring international intervention.

The video discusses the tension between respecting different cultures and religions versus imposing universal human rights standards. The video argues that while all cultures have something positive to offer, some traditions (such as castrating girls with hot irons, marrying minors, or extreme animal cruelty) should not be tolerated. The video criticizes the idea that all cultural traditions must be respected equally, arguing that some practices are so harmful that they should be condemned regardless of cultural context. The video uses personal experience of witnessing a brutal bullfighting tradition in Peru to illustrate this point. The video also discusses the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), one of the UN's most important social programs, and argues that the UN's contradictory position on gender equality (appointing Saudi Arabia, a country with extreme gender inequality, to lead this forum) demonstrates that the UN not only fails to address gender inequality but actively promotes it.

This segment presents a debate between cultural relativism and universal human rights. The speaker argues that while different cultures have different practices (cultural inculturation, different religions, different systems), some practices are unacceptable regardless of cultural context. The speaker acknowledges that cultural differences exist but distinguishes between acceptable differences (like Japan's discriminatory store policies) and unacceptable practices (like raping children and marrying off young girls). The speaker emphasizes that Afghanistan is not a westernized society, most of the country lacks electricity, and having basic modern amenities is a luxury reserved for the wealthy. The segment concludes that opposing a religion or culture does not make one a 'phobe' but indicates disagreement with that system.

Human rights organizations may be reluctant to intervene in cases involving cultural practices that conflict with their values. In this case, a human rights organization refused to intervene in the case, citing the prevalence of honor-based violence and domestic violence in Iran. This demonstrates how cultural practices that conflict with human rights standards can create challenges for international organizations seeking to protect vulnerable populations.