Philo 101

May 1, 2017

The Other

Whether or not one knows it, they are always subject to some form of prejudice by anyone

they meet. This holds to be true when discussing matters relating to cultural relativism as well as its

opposing argument moral isolationism, both of which hold a fair stance to anyone who should adopt

these ideas. To start, cultural relativism, is the idea of regarding one's own practices, beliefs and values

from the original culture itself. However, Mary Midgley, a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, adds to this

by stating that this also seeks that we have no basis for judging another culture (excluding the condition

that we could try to understand it), since morality, which is the foundation of many of our judgements,

differs from one culture to another. She also considers it to be the denial of the understanding of any

culture except one's own to make a fair judgement about it, going quite far to name it "moral

isolationism". Moral isolationism, defines much of cultural relativism in a critical way, such that that

one's refrainement from judging another's culture due to respect, can be seen as nonsensical due to us

being able to understand people well enough, and form a sound judgment from that alone. This

continues to a point where she points out that other cultures compare our culture to their own regardless

of their own position (so we must be able to do the same by that logic), reinforces the idea that moral

isolationism does not allow any opinions on these matters since it is grounds for misconception, and

that whether one judges something to be malicious or benevolant, without it we would have no

foundation for a comparison of ones own policies and no chance at profiting at other people's

inductions or errors, thus leading to no judgements on our account. Though these statements may be

harsh of the idea of cultural relativism, it appears somewhat sound to me. I agree with her statements,

the most important one being that we could not condemn oppression and insolence if we all thought

that our judgments were too influenced by the nature of one's own culture. This is important to me
because in a culture there could exist an example of people taking advantage of those who do not know

any better, such as human trafficking, where many children are forced against their own wits into this,

yet since this is the norm there, it would justified by its veil of culture to those who are in it. This would

appear to many outsiders as taking advantage of the ignorance of the victims because of their age, yet if

cultural relativism prevailed we would not be able to take action because we do not experience this

ourselves, leading us to believe that we formed a misconception. Although there exists examples

contrary to my position, such as subjects willing to go thorugh self mutilation for the acceptance and

promotion of their culture despite knowing the risk and hazards it poses on their health, we cannot help

but at least form opinions about these actions and instinctavly compare it to our own culture, due to our

self-preservation insticts that influences our decision on what is best for us, regardless of whether or

not we experienced it firsthand. Ultimately, it is quite optimal to make comparisons of one own culture

to another because that is a part of the process of analayzing another culture, though as Midgley had

put it, it is best to have a great understanding of a subject before one judges it.

I Kant Do It

All of our actions have consequences whether one is aware of it or not. This is important in

the substance of Immanuel Kant's work, specifically Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals,

where he mentions the frameworks in which one should conduct their moral beliefs in. That being,

"Only act on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal

law". What he meant by this is basically the if the means of your actions do not justify your result by

comparing if other people had done the same thing regardless of their situation, it is consequentially

immoral. For example, if a man promises to pay back a debt that he cannot pay back, it would be

immoral since if it were to become a universal law, there would be huge economical chaos and severe

distrust among several parties who participate in this activity, regardless of the society. Though there

exists several more examples in Kant's work, there also exists holes in his argument. In my POV, if I
were to be tasked with giving my valuable possesions away to those who are less fortunate,which is in

essence charity, my actions are considered moral by Kant, however suppose if I were poor but dirt poor,

I would not benefit from this since my action affected me too greatly (reducing me to dirt poor) and

only considers the means of the action, not the consequences. There exists similar problems which are

pointed out by Steven Cahn, where he states that one action considered moral may contradict another,

where one is faced with problem such as stealing food to feed your family. Had you stolen the bread,

you would provide a terribe example of a universal law where anyone can steal food if they felt hungry,

however, had you not stolen the food you would be under scrutiny for not helping out those in distress

such as your family. This leads to a contradiction in following Kants philosophy, where one cannot

complete all the requirements for a moral action. Thus, it becomes satisfying as a response to Kant's

ideas of morals since it provides the weaknesses of the Kantian philosophy, however I feel the best

approach to analyzing a situation, is to not only consider the means of your actions but also the

consequences that follow. Perhaps it would lead to a more sound judgement in ones situation, however,

there always exists large to infinitissimally small variables that may influence this deduction.

Ultimately, it would be best to not only seek affirmation of ones own actions and consequences through

one's self, but also by those who influenced you and those who were affected by it.