In looking as an outsider on the ways of another culture it is the norm for many people to want to remove their own personal values from an analysis and instead take the position that we cannot judge a society that we do not exist within, as Midgely called “moral isolationism”. It is easy to understand this course of logic; as a foreigner entering into another culture, especially one where actions that we view as immoral exist on a commonplace level, it is only natural to take the stance of ‘who am I to judge’, or ‘when in Rome…’. How can you condemn an action that is a societal norm? But this then raises the issue of the looking glass turning the other direction; if we cannot judge another culture, can that culture judge us? By embarking down this path of moral relativism we head towards a destination that is inherently immoral because there are no absolutes but instead only situations and contexts in which things are moral and others where they are not.
Many would argue that each society is entitled to their own opinions and to create their own values. These same people would instead argue that there are no universal truths. Ironically, this statement in itself is a paradox as what it espouses is a universal truth. By removing our capacity to judge others & other cultures we take the cowardly & easy way out, when the reality is there are universal truths and absolutes. How can one take the stance that something is absolutely and unconditionally immoral, but then later add the caveat that this only applies to their society. If something is absolute does this not apply universally? By taking this view of moral isolationism it undermines the validity of the arguments that do not fall outside the scope of their society as it now opens the door for a notion of moral relativism.
In operating in a world where cross-cultural interactions are virtually a daily occurrence