Ethical relativism is defined as, “the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture” (www.scu.edu.com) The interesting aspect of ethical relativism is that morally right or wrong decision fluctuate from culture to culture. Meaning, once something is considered morally wrong in one culture, may be considered morally correct in another. Benedict creates an argument for ethical relativism by providing examples of catalepsy, homosexuality, and head-hunting. These specific cultures created a norm that the remaining population will follow. Benedict lightly explains that our culture wouldn’t be in support of psychic manifestations, and most people in our society would reject that phenomenon. Benedict then moves on to talk about the varying views that multiple cultures have on homosexuality. Benedict is aware of the many perspectives that homosexuality is interpreted in other societies. She explains that in Greece, “[homosexuality] is presented as one of the major means to the good life…” Benedict provides another example from an American Indian tribe where, “…men-women were men at puberty or thereafter took the dress and the occupations of women. Sometimes they married mean and lived with them” She continues to add that the men-women were so necessary to the American Indian’s tribe survival, because of their occupations (healing diseases and social organizers) Benedict talks about the head-hunting done in other culture and their motivations to do so. She explains that our culture would see head-hunting being fueled by vengeance, but for the Northwest Coast that behavior is considered honorable.
All of these cultures follow ethical relativism by having the majority of a culture/society make the decisions for everyone else. If a society viewed capital punishment as favorable and abortion unfavorable, then that society would follow that expectation/norm. Capital punishment has many consequences, based on the severity of that action. A society/culture that doesn’t condemn capital punishment must find the possible phenomenon functional for their development. If a society/culture condemns abortion, then they must not deem it as functional for its development. I believe ethical relativism is something that is taught and nurtured for years to people at a young age. When a person grows up knowing one thing it would be very hard for them to unlearn that thing. The one flaw that’s noticeable for ethical relativism is its limited view on many other aspects in a society. I can see ethical relativism turning into ethnocentrism very quickly. When a society/culture rejects an aspect of another society/culture, they are slightly contributing to their ethnocentrism. In the examples Benedict there weren’t any instances that those cultures felt that what they were doing was wrong. I believe what is considered to be culturally acceptable is based on what has been proven successful by past generations.
Word Count: 466
Jaida's Blog 