CULTURAL RELATIVISM,

AN ABUSE TO THE INDIVDUAL?

A Summary and Reflection Paper

Presented to
Loyola School of Theology
Ateneo de Manila University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Bachelor of Sacred Theology for
Theo 273.1, Introduction to Thomas Aquinas

By
Aaron Alammalay (2015-02849)
2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 - 2
Cultural Relativism ..................................................................................................................... 2
Cultural Relativism: Absolutely Impossible ........................................................................ 2 4
Ethical Application and its Criticism to Cultural Relativism .................................................. 5
AN ABUSE TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN CULTURAL RELATIVISM? ................................ 6
For Anthropology ......................................................................................................................... 6
In Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 6
In Relation to Christianity Christianity ..................................................................................... 7
AQUINAS ON ETHICS ........................................................................................................ 8 9
Aquinas as a Constructivist ........................................................................................................ 9
STRENGHTS IN MORAL LAW A CONCLUSION ..................................................... 10 11
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 11

INTRODUCTION
Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which varies from culture
to culture, are equally valid and no one system is really better than any other. This is based on
the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and
wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the
cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be
considered the best, or worst, and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be
considered right or wrong.
The author of this paper tends to prove that cultural relativism is an abuse on the
individual person in itself. Why because relativism should not be influenced by culture.
Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of
reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and
frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to
them.1
Relativism as mentioned in the above quote, does cover many aspects including culture.
However it does not have to be so as each culture varies from one to another, but all cultures do
cultivate and observe the same source of law and that is the Natural Law. If we say that the Fifth
Commandment of You shall not Kill2 applies only to the Christian faith, then we are wrong as
the 10 Commandments are derived from Natural Law. Most culture do not approve of
unnecessary killing.

Maria Baghramian and Adam Carter, Relativism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2015
Edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ (Accessed on 2 November 2015)
2

c.f. Exodus 20:13, NRSV.

2
The author in his defense uses two sources from St. Thomas Summa Theologica. One
point of reference is based on the The power of human law3. The second point of reference is
based on Natural Law4.

Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is a widely held position in the modern world. Words like pluralism,
tolerance, acceptance, have taken on new meanings, as the boundaries of culture have expanded.
It is also a loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost
anything to be justified on the grounds of relativism. This in relativism includes a fairly wide
range of ideas, all of which introduces instability and uncertainty into areas that were previously
considered settled. For example stepping up to the edge of a cliff gives you a good perspective of
the terrain below. Taking one step too far, as cultural relativism does, would lead to a disaster.
Perspective is important to a persons understanding of history, psychology, and politics.
Cultural perspective can help one understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong
in a particular culture.

Cultural Relativism: Absolutely Impossible

The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A society that
embraces the notion that there is no ultimate right or wrong loses the ability to make any
judgments at all5. The way in which relativism, including cultural relativism, has permeated
modern society is demonstrated in the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this
3

c.f. STh I-II Q. 96, a. 2.

c.f. STh I-II Q. 94, a. 2.

c.f. STh II-II Q. 60, a. 3.

3
contradiction. Tolerance has mutated to imply unconditional support and agreement for all
opinions or lifestyles. However, those who choose to be intolerant are not to be supported or
agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an ultimate good in and of itself, which is
contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the same way, heinous crimes such as rape and
murder demand a moral judgment, but strict cultural relativism cannot say that such things are
always wrong.
Relativism in general breaks down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The
basic premise is that truth is relative. If every truth statement is valid, then the statement some
truths are absolute must be valid. The statement there are no absolute truths is accurate,
according to relativism, but it is an absolute truth itself. These contradict the very concept of
relativism, meaning that absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible6.

c.f. STh I Q. 2-13.

Picture 1: An Illustration of Cultural Relativism

The picture above is an example of cultural relativism that can be defined as a concept whereby
cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. The idiom
When in Rome, do as the Romans do, is a simple means of summarizing the concept, however
it implies action, whereas the history of the term relates to observation.

5
Ethical Application and its Criticism to Cultural Relativism
Despite its anthropological origins, cultural relativism has gained prominence as an
ethical theory, however not without significant criticism. The heart of the issue lies in applying a
theory of observation and understanding to one of right and wrong, with the relative culture
serving as the measure of appropriateness.
Cultural relativism states that there is no singular truth on which to base ethical or moral
behavior as our interpretations of truths are influenced by our own culture. Modifying our idiom,
one could say that whatever the Romans do in Rome is ethical and acceptable because thats life
for them and we have no right to judge them even if we see and are aware that what they do is
wrong. In this manner, it shares the position with moral relativism7 that there is no absolute or
universal set of values or principles that can be used to judge human behavior, what is acceptable
is judged by the culture in which the actions take place, and cannot be viewed out of that context.
With moral behavior being relative to a learned set of cultural norms rather than being
relative to the actions of the individual, cultural relativism differs from moral relativism. In the
sense that it considers moral behavior to be situated in a particular time and space. However one
criticism dismisses this notion, as cultures evolve and change, as do the subsequent norms. For
example, slavery was once acceptable in western cultures, but that is no longer the case.
Therefore, cultural relativism can be questioned based on its foundation of a changeable set of
norms.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular and that no
standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

6
AN ABUSE TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN CULTURAL RELATIVISM?
Cultural relativism is one of the many principles of the philosophy of ethics. Unlike most
other theories, however, it has more anthropological significance than ethical.

For Anthropology
Cultural relativism may be vital tool for anthropology. As such, it does not claim to
define right or wrong behavior. Instead, it is a device used to investigate different cultures
without making judgments about those cultures. In other terms, this is a decision to understand
ones behavior within the context of ones culture, instead of comparing it to another. Here,
language is investigated more carefully, taking into account sounds and inflections not native to
the researcher. The behavior is also compared to the culture and environment, showing how
taboos came to be without judging those ethics.

In Ethics
In ethics, cultural relativism falls under the auspices of ethical relativism. Ethical
relativism says that there is no universal standard of morality. Cultural relativism as an ethical
theory goes beyond anthropology and states definitively that an act is moral if it adheres to the
culture of the acting agent.

7
In Relation to Christianity
Cultural relativism is mildly biblical. We can see this description in the Gentile believers
who did not have to obey the same laws that the Jews did, although they were still required to be
set-apart as God's people8.
One way Christian missionaries have responded to cultural relativism is through the
adaptation. Instead of forcing a distinctly European-style worship of Jesus, churches in
predominantly non-Christian countries have a graduated mixture of Bible-based truths and
cultural standards. So a believer in Saudi Arabia may still eat Halal food and wear a headscarf
(for a woman) because one believes it is right.
Another issue in Asia and Africa is the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is perfectly legal
in many countries and in Islam. But when a man with several wives becomes a Christian, he is
often convicted that polygamy was not God's perfect plan for His followers. In this case, he is
struggling with his own culture, and has difficult decisions to make.

c.f. Acts 15:24-29, NRSV.

8
AQUINAS ON ETHICS
St. Thomas Aquinas argues that for every action or series of actions there must be
something that is first in order of intention. In other words, there must be some end or
good that is intrinsically desirable and serves the wills final cause9.
For Aquinas, the Natural Law is our participation in the governance of the universe that
God brings about through the Eternal Law.
By use of reason, we are able to understand the order by which God cares for everything
in the universe, and it is thus that we discover the natural law, the reflection of God's eternal law
that is written into our nature.
The common good, for Aquinas, is that for which human society exists, it is the purpose
of the human community. In absolute terms, Aquinas believes that human society exists to
glorify God like in everything else. In relation to the members of the human society, it exists for
full flourishing of all of the members. This flourishing, the good of each individual, is dictated
by natural law. It is dictated by what reason determines to be the end or ends toward which God
has determined every human to be directed according to his or her rational nature.
Thus, as life is to be preserved as a good for all living things, therefore certain goods
which pertain to human nature in particular are also to be preserved and protected, for example
freedom to worship, the opportunity to develop one's rational capacities through education and
so on.
Also, there are certain goods that humans should pursue as rational beings, not only in
isolation and for the sake of each individual, but also social goods as in the examples of civil

c.f. STh I Q4 a1.

9
peace or national defense. All of these goods, life, religion, education and national defense,
pertains to the common good.

Aquinas as a Constructivist
For Aquinas the origin and purpose of the Law is rational, and generated by reason, for
the good of the community, and therefore the law is for the common good. Laws set an account
of the good, particularly shows them something about being a good member of the community.
Even though laws may be general, they are still adapted to the nature of the community, which
varies from community to community, and to the classes of individuals who make up the society.
The human law according to Thomas is not obliged to stop all vices10. The law is meant
or custom built for most people, who are far from perfect in virtue. The aim of the law is to
counteract more grievous vices from which the majority society can abstain, where vices are
more prone to hurt others, like in the examples of murder, theft, and the likes. Should the law
attempt to legislate perfection, it would make people hostile to the law and defeat its purpose.
In reference to the changing in natural law, this can be done in two ways; the first way is
by addition where nothing hinders the law from being changed. Secondly, a change in the
natural law may be understood by way of subtraction, so that what previously was according to
the natural law, ceases to be so.11

10

STh I-II Q. 96, a. 2.

11

STh I-II Q. 94, a. 2.

10
STRENGHTS IN MORAL LAW A CONCLUSION
Aquinas Natural Law theory was formed from Christianity, the Stoics and Aristotles
perspectives. This theory is both absolutists and there are five absolute primary precepts. There is
universal application of one law who is God12. Aquinas believed that if people condemned Gods
command, they would be enslaved by non-rational, non-natural desires.
Natural Law gives us absolute rules, which protect human life. The five primary precepts,
absolute rules that must be followed, include the worship of God, educating the young. For
example, if the primary precepts of preserving innocent life, and maintaining an ordered society
without cultural relativism, murder would be prevented, which is certainly the strength of
Natural Law.
However, in applying the principle of double effect13 in an abortion case where for a
situation such as an ectopic pregnancy (both the mother and childs life would be threatened), as
the destruction of the fetus would be secondary. Clearly Natural Law helps us protect human life.
Natural Law allows us to use our own reason. One key idea of Natural Law is the use of
reason and it is possible to know right and wrong even if one is not a Catholic and morality. This
means that humans are able to use their reason to generate secondary precepts. However, it
should be noted that there would only ever be one acceptable outcome for any one use of reason
casuistry. Certainly then, to a certain extent, humans can be autonomous.

12

Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica:Concerning the Republic or Commonwealth, Book Three, trs. Francis
Barham, http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/08_Classics-Library/hellenist-roman/cicero/de-re-publica/de-republica_3.htm (Accessed on 5 November 2015).
13

This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform
an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle
has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral
theologians.

11
This theory allows one to have morals without reading the Bible for atheists and
Christians alike, primarily because of the idea that humans can use their reason and wisdom to
generate their own secondary precepts, can uphold natural law.

Bibliography
Baghramian, Maria and Carter, Adam. Relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed.
Edward N. Zalta. Winter 2015 Edition.
Beatch, Richard. Cultural Relativism and Philosophy. Review of Metaphysics vol. 47.1994.
Carter, J. Adam and Gordon, Emma C. A new Maneuver Against the Epistemic Relativist. 2013.