Question

According to Falzon, why does Kant’s account of knowledge result in a radical form of relativism?

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Cultural relativism is a concept that analyses how an action that is perceived as right in one culture might be perceived as wrong in another. For instance, eating beef might be a viewed as a good thing in America as it is a source of protein. However, to an Indian Hindu, eating beef is culturally wrong as the cow is revered for the utility it has to a farmer. Therefore, what is right and wrong is relative to the cultural lens that the action is viewed through.

Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that the right and wrong of an action isn’t dependent on the outcome but, on whether or not they fulfill one’s duty. In the above illustration, it isn’t a matter of whether it is right or wrong to kill a cow. The matter above discusses how it is a cultural duty of a Hindu to not kill a cow and a cultural norm for an American to get their nutrition from beef.

Culture is a form of “priori knowledge” in Kant’s account of knowledge. This states that one’s actions are also dictated by the foreknowledge of one’s culture. Since culture is a relative concept, Falzon viewed certain Kantian ethics as a form of radical relativism.