Make and defend an argument about whether or not metaethical cultural relativism (or moral relativism) is true or false. To do so you’ll need not only to explain reasoning from course content but also identify objections to the argument you make.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Truth of Metaethical Cultural Relativism: An Argument for Its Validity
Introduction
Metaethical cultural relativism, often referred to simply as moral relativism, posits that moral values and norms are not universally applicable but instead are shaped by cultural contexts. This view suggests that what is considered “right” or “wrong” varies from one culture to another, and there are no absolute moral truths that transcend these cultural differences. In this essay, I will argue in favor of the truth of metaethical cultural relativism, presenting reasoning that supports this perspective while also addressing key objections to it.
Argument for Metaethical Cultural Relativism
1. Cultural Variation
One of the strongest arguments for metaethical cultural relativism is the observable variation in moral beliefs and practices across different cultures. For instance, practices such as polygamy, capital punishment, and dietary restrictions can be viewed very differently depending on cultural norms. In some societies, polygamy is socially acceptable and even celebrated, while in others, it is considered immoral or illegal. The existence of such significant differences suggests that morality is not a fixed entity but rather a social construct influenced by cultural contexts.
2. Historical Perspective
Historical analysis further supports the idea of moral relativism. Throughout history, what was once deemed morally acceptable has changed drastically. For example, practices such as slavery, child marriage, and female infanticide were once widely accepted in various cultures but are now condemned. This evolution indicates that moral standards are not static or universal but evolve with time and cultural shifts, reinforcing the relativist argument.
3. Tolerance and Understanding
Cultural relativism encourages tolerance and understanding among diverse cultures. By recognizing that moral beliefs are shaped by cultural contexts, individuals can approach differing moral perspectives with an open mind rather than a judgmental stance. This perspective fosters greater empathy and cooperation in a globally interconnected world, as it acknowledges that no single culture holds a monopoly on moral truth.
Objections to Metaethical Cultural Relativism
1. The Problem of Moral Disagreement
One major objection to metaethical cultural relativism is the problem of moral disagreement. Critics argue that if moral values are entirely culturally dependent, then any action can be justified by appealing to cultural norms. For example, some cultures may condone practices such as honor killings or human rights violations based on their moral frameworks. This leads to the troubling conclusion that no moral standard can be deemed superior to another, potentially allowing for harmful practices to be justified.
Counterargument
While it is true that cultural relativism may lead to challenges in addressing harmful practices, it does not imply that all cultural norms are equally valid or beyond critique. The relativist position can incorporate a level of critical examination within cultures, allowing for the possibility of reform and evolution of moral standards from within rather than imposing external judgments. Moreover, many cultures share fundamental principles, such as the value of human life; thus, while practices may vary, a dialogue about shared values can emerge.
2. Universal Moral Principles
Another objection is the existence of universal moral principles that transcend cultural boundaries. Proponents of moral realism argue that certain moral truths—such as the wrongness of torture or genocide—are universally valid regardless of cultural context.
Counterargument
While some may argue for universal moral principles, the existence of diverse interpretations of these principles across cultures undermines their universality. Even concepts such as justice and fairness can manifest differently based on cultural perspectives. Moreover, proponents of universal morality often struggle to provide a foundation for these principles that does not rely on subjective interpretations rooted in specific cultural contexts.
3. Ethical Progress
Critics also point out that if moral relativism is true, it undermines the concept of ethical progress. If morality is entirely determined by culture, then movements toward greater equality and justice—such as civil rights movements—cannot be seen as progress but merely shifts in cultural standards.
Counterargument
Ethical progress can still be understood within a framework of cultural relativism by recognizing that cultures can evolve and change over time. While the relativist perspective does not claim an absolute standard for progress, it allows for the idea that cultures can develop better or more equitable systems based on dialogue and reflection within their contexts. This evolution embodies a form of ethical growth that remains valid within the relativist framework.
Conclusion
In conclusion, metaethical cultural relativism presents a compelling framework for understanding morality as a culturally constructed phenomenon deeply influenced by social contexts. While it faces significant objections, particularly regarding moral disagreement and the concept of ethical progress, these challenges can be addressed through thoughtful counterarguments that emphasize dialogue and the evolution of cultural norms. By embracing a relativist perspective, we can foster greater tolerance and understanding among diverse cultures while acknowledging the complex nature of morality itself. Overall, the truth of metaethical cultural relativism lies in its ability to account for the rich tapestry of human experience in shaping our moral landscapes.
