Two of the more widely used theories for what constitutes moral actions and what does not are Cultural Relativism, which relies on what the society thinks is moral, and the Divine Command Theory, which relies on god and religion for moral beliefs. Both Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command theory can explain away specified cases, but in the end neither can provide a universal standard for morality.

            The first case I will look at essentially asks: is it wrong for the culture in this small country of Hashos to use marijuana for special occasions because their own gods directed it? The case clearly states that no chaos ensues and the ceremony in question goes off without any hiccups, or disturbances.

            When viewed by this culture, the action of using marijuana at special occasions is not only acceptable, but encouraged. By the sound of it, this practice has been going on for quite some time and it’s clear that the use of it is legal and causes no problems. Under cultural relativism this action is morally acceptable, the Hashos culture approves of it; so it is moral. This may not be the case for us when we visit Hashos because our culture’s view on the matter is different, and thus we might see it as morally unacceptable, but according to this theory, neither of us is wrong because our own culture approves of our actions.

            Under the divine command theory; what’s right is based on what god says is right (Schick, Vaughn 314). This theory would bring about bigger conflict in this scenario because it is possible, and likely, that this culture believes in a different god than you do. You could believe in the singular god who is all knowing and powerful, while they might believe in several tribal gods who can have flaws and conflicts. The result is that neither side is morally right because it requires proof that one side’s god exists. We also cannot say that the form of the god doesn’t matter because the singular god never really specified it is okay to use marijuana, and yet their gods apparently did. So we might think it is morally wrong while they find it acceptable. The theory says; what god says is moral is moral, but it assumes there is only one god.

            Personally I believe that cultural relativism gives the better response. We have different cultures so we have different moral beliefs; its simple and understandable. The divine command theory hits walls because it is relying on the existence of god or gods, which starts several new arguments that don’t help to answer the initial question. In this case, it was morally permissible to use the marijuana because you were in their culture and it is allowed, but at the same time it is also morally permissible to not use it because your own culture disapproves of it.

            While I found cultural relativism to be the better explanation in the previous case, that doesn’t mean it is the best theory, or even the best in many other cases. Not only does this theory say that cultural reformers are wrong (Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.) but it personifies morality as a majority “We all believe it, so it is right!” This sounds immoral just thinking about it. We also have to analyze what determines one’s culture. What if you live in the city during the winter and the country in the summer? Which culture’s beliefs do you follow? Which ones are right? Apparently we can only promote tolerance if our culture says so (Notes April 7).

            One example of this theory’s failures can go as such: you travel to a similarly remote country for vacation and you partake in the rituals of a local tribe or culture that is the dominant civilization on that continent. Now let’s say that instead of bringing out marijuana, they bring out a virgin. You quickly come to find out that all guests are required to sacrifice one virgin to the gods as an exchange for the culture’s hospitality. Now you find yourself with a knife and a virgin amidst a culture that not only approves the slaughter of the victim but encourages it. In the case of cultural relativism this action is right because the culture approves of it. Unlike the marijuana case, this case is far more black and white. Many Americans are in support of marijuana despite our laws, but unless they are a serial killer, this practice of sacrifice his horribly immoral. I know that if I was forced into this situation I would try to stop them, or run. With a case like this, the theory goes against even the most basic of morals that human beings have across cultures.    

            The only true advantages of this theory are that it accounts for individuals being mistaken; what we think isn’t necessarily right, and emotions can be inappropriate which also ties in with the individual’s morals (Notes April 7), though this isn’t much of an advantage. Under Cultural Relativism it also becomes apparent that there can’t be universal moral standards. The Anthropological Argument states that societies view the same action differently, and thus have different moral standards. If these societies have different moral standards then there are no universal standards, thus there can’t be universal moral standards (Schick, Vaughn 311).

            The divine command theory isn’t without its own set of complications. Aside from the argument over multiple gods, as I stated earlier, this theory makes god’s commands arbitrary. If the commandments had read ‘thou shalt eat until thou art fat’ or ‘thou shalt bed thy neighbor’s wife’ then those actions would be seen as the right thing to do by today’s religious standards. We can’t just say that whatever god says is moral because he could say anything, thus making no universal moral standards. Then we could ask ourselves, should we worship a god who can say and do anything he wants? We like to think that our god enforces universal morals, not makes them up on the spot (Schick, Vaughn 315). This theory also argues around in a circle. If good equals god’s commands, and god’s commands equal good, then really all it is saying is that god’s commands equals god’s commands (Notes April 7). Arguing in a circle never gets anywhere.

            One example where the divine command theory might contradict with standing morality could be in a religion that requires the consumption of meat on, say, the twelfth day of the month. This religion was told by god that on the twelfth day they were to eat a ham to celebrate the new month. Eating the ham is religiously followed and if you refuse the ham, you are shunned from the church, under the pretext that you are shunning the lord. Now let’s say that you joined this religion without knowing this and you were a vegetarian beforehand. You refuse to eat meat based on your personal morals, and yet this religion clearly states that god says you should eat ham on the twelfth day of the month. Are you then immoral and wrong for not eating the meat? You participate willingly in all the activities of the church and are deeply religious but you continue to refuse the ham. Which set of morals is right, yours or gods? Clearly this theory says that god is right so you should eat the ham and discard your vegetarianism because it’s immoral and wrong. Obviously choosing not to eat the meat wouldn’t be an immoral act, nor do people see it that way in our culture.

            The advantage of the divine command theory is that it not only accounts for the possibility of individuals being wrong, but it accounts for cultures as well (Notes April 7). So the culture that sacrificed virgins can be wrong under this theory, though if their gods commanded it, then this theory hits another wall.

            I don’t believe that either of these theories gives an adequate answer for universal morality, however I do think that cultural relativism gives the best explanation for the morals we currently have, and how they will change in the future. It is easy to see that all cultures have different beliefs and standards, that is how they were raised; dictated by different environmental and genetic information, but that does not make any of our actions truly right or wrong. Cultural relativism is more of an explanation of why we have the morals we have, not what’s actually moral and the Divine Command theory sounds more like an excuse rather than an answer.

Works Cited

Schick, Theodore Jr., Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments. Second Edition. McGraw Hill, 2002.

Philosophy 101 notes, April 7, 2005.