Cultural Relativism

  The theory of Cultural Relativism raises issues that I do and do not agree with. The author of the article describes this theory by stating that depending on the culture that you are from, your morals and actions will be different from the next culture. This creates the belief that there really is no right or wrong, it just depends on the culture that you are in.
   For the examples, the author describes the Eskimo groups killing their children that they have because they cannot care for them. The author also describes the Callatians who would eat their deceased relatives. Our culture views these actions as wrong, but through the Cultural Relativism theory, these actions are neither wrong or right.
    I completely disagree with the statement that the killing of children is not wrong. The Eskimos may believe it as morally fine to murder an unwanted child.  Most people have a conscience, and there is no way that every single Eskimo does not have one. The reason that we have a conscience is to keep us from doing evil things like that, whether society says it is okay or not. Just because others say the action is moral, that does not make it okay. The author makes the argument that the Eskimos can be justified because they cannot sustain all of the children that they have. It is very selfish of them to go and have intercourse with each other so often and then not take responsibility for the results. If they cannot take care of many children, maybe they should limit the amount of intercourse they have with each other. The author also makes the argument that if the Eskimos did not kill the girls so often, then the female population would outweigh the male population. There is no way that the Eskimos know that. That is a scientist searching for an excuse for their actions. The author concludes his defense of the Eskimos by saying that “The Eskimos’ values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make.” This is one of the most short-sighted statements I have ever read. Saying that the Eskimos’ values are not all that different from ours is completely wrong. We value life. They do not value life. Those are opposite statements, not synonyms. He also says that they are forced with choices that we do not have to make. Again, he says an unintelligent statement. They are not forced to kill their children. They do not have to have so many kids. Most Americans cannot have as many kids as they would like either. So instead of killing unwanted children, they do their best not to have children in the first place.
  The Callatians eating their dead ancestors is more understandable. They are not murdering anybody and are not violating their conciences, probably because they are not really doing an evil action. Like the author says, maybe they believe that their ancestors spirit will reside with them.
  The problem with this theory is that there is no law or right or wrong. Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, the following example will be true: If a person goes and blows up a school and a nursing home, they are fine because after all, isn’t the world overpopulated? Maybe that person’s culture believes in that so don’t make any laws against murder, or they might get offended. Yes, every culture is different, but that does not mean stand by when other people are getting harmed. When the tradition is not harmful, such as the eating of the deceased relatives, it is okay. But if Hitler was ignored because he was just doing what he believed was right when he and the Nazis were killing people in the concentration camps and taking over Europe, were would we be now? Murder is not excusable, no matter who is doing it.
   The author concludes with two statements. His first statement is that this theory warns us about assuming that we are always right. I agree with this, we should try to understand other cultures and learn from them and not be prejudiced against them. But there is nothing to understand about murder. The second statement is to keep an open mind. Again, this is a good point. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean that you should close them out. Always be open to new ideas.
   This theory fits well with Things Fall Apart. In this novel, the Christians do not try to understand the differences of the African tribes. Instead of learning why they do certain things, they push their beliefs on the Africans instead of letting the Africans push their beliefs on them. The first missionary Mr. Brown would follow this theory by sitting and talking to the village leader. Mr. Smith did the opposite and forced his ideas on the Africans, without any sympathy that this culture is all that the Umofian people knew. If the Christians had attempted to understand the African people, perhaps the Africans would have been more receptive to the missionaries.