Deontology and Cultural Relativism

Deontology is better than Cultural Relativism

As what determines the morality of actions became one of the controversial topics in ethics, there were two philosophical theories providing distinct normative claims. In the theory of Cultural Relativism, relative moral codes in different cultural societies lead to no objective “truth” in morality (Rachel 16). However, Deontology theory, based on Categorical Imperative, suggests people act only in conformance to universal law (Kant 108). Although I agree with Cultural Relativism theory that “different cultural have different moral codes” (Rachel 16), I will argue that Deontology is better than Cultural Relativism, since Deontology provides the basis, which Cultural Relativism does not have, to condemn particular immoral practices universally. However, due to its rigidity, Deontology has the problem of no having any exceptions. By the idea of Threshold Deontology, I argue that consequences more important than Deontology theory when universal law disregards human life in an exception case.

The cultural differences argument indicates that because of different moral codes in different cultures, there is no objective true rule in morality. I agree with the premise of this argument. Societies, according to their relative life environment, perform varying moral codes for one action. Eskimos regarded killing female infants as to ensure family’s survival, but American saw this action as lacking respect for human life (Rachel 21). However, just because the premise of an argument is true doesn’t mean the conclusion must be right. In Challenge of Cultural Relativism, Rachel illustrates that the cultural differences argument is invalid since the conclusion is not following the premise (Rachel 18). If the cultural differences argument is right, there is no basis to condemn culturally entrenched actions in both own and other societies, whatever heinous practices they maybe. Excision, which is female genital cutting in some African nations, can cause pain, result in the permanent loss of sexual pleasure and increase a woman death risk (Rachel 24). According to Cultural Relativism, excision is considered to moral action in their own societies and people outside their societies have no reason to condemn it. But is this true? Female excision does not have any obvious social benefits and is not required for family survival unlike Eskimos infanticide. I believe that excision is a heinous practice beyond criticism, therefore, I argue that Cultural Relativism has problem on judging immoral actions in both own and other societies.

I argue that Deontology is better than Cultural Relativism, because Deontological rule can help to fix a lack of basis to judge heinous practices, which is the problem in Cultural Relativism. According to Deontology, a good motivation is the one that acts from duty, which is based on Categorical Imperative and one of the main formula in Categorical Imperative is to act only by maxim that could become a universal law (Kant 108). Basically, if the maxim of the action can be a universal law of nature, then this is a good action. To determine if female excision is a right action, deontologists would inquire whether the maxim of excision is a universal law. Some African nations hold excision principle so that women can more loyal to husband and less promiscuous. So the maxim of excision would go as follows: people can harm others whenever they believe this harm can benefit themselves. Deontologists then would turn this maxim into a universal law and ask what would happen if this demand of benefits hold as a universal law. It is obvious that this maxim could never become a universal law of nature and would contradict itself. For, if everyone, when he believes this action can benefit himself, could harm others, people would harm each other at the end and there is no real benefits for themselves at all. This implies that the maxim of female excision cannot be a universal law and excision is not a right action. Deontology fixes the problem of lacking basis to criticize culturally immoral actions in Cultural Relativism. Therefore, I argue Deontology is better than Cultural Relativism.

However, Deontology has its own restriction. No exception is the main problem of Deontology. I argue that the maxim cannot become a universal law not always because of the action motivated by this maxim is bad, but since the action based on this maxim happens in an exception case. For example, a crazed murder comes and asks someone where his wife is. Assuming he only has two choices: lie or not lie, he should lie and many people would suggest lying. However, according to Deontology, he should first ask himself whether lying could be a universal law. It is clear that if lying became a universal law, there would never have “telling truth” then no lying at all. Therefore, he does not have duty to lie at any situation. He has to tell where his wife is and the murder can go to kill his wife. People would not say telling truth at this special situation is a moral action, since it could cause the death of a person. This is one of exception cases that Deontology with strict rule has problem on.