Ethical Relativism and Cultural Influence
Ethical relativism is not only crucial to political and religious leaders but also shines controversy among various philosophers and anthropologists. Many scholars agree to the fact that there is an active link between culture, moral principles and the general idea of normality. This essay will feature analysis of various authors on the sensitive issue of ethical relativism in our respective societies. It will also seek to determine the validity of authors’ arguments in their publications.
Ruth Benedict's Insights on Ethical Relativism
Ruth Benedict’s book Patterns of Culture (1935) is a source of insightful arguments about moral relativism. According to her, morality is determined by historical accounts and environments of different cultural settings. Later in her publication, she advocates for conventionalism as an accurate perception of moral behavior. Benedict then talks about distinct social orders in the so-called primitive societies. People living in such settings have not danced to the wave of global civilization and are resourceful in creating reliable evidence for Ruth Benedict. Such groups of people include; Fijians, Dyaks, Hopis, and Yakuts have lived simple lives free of influence and are essential in psychological and sociological research experiments.
Cultural Factors and Variability of Moral Behavior
The civilization that we are experiencing in modern times cannot be used as a basis for affirmative ethical relativism and are minor adjustments. The adjustments mentioned above include modes of exhibiting anger, happiness, somber mood and sexual drives. These variables are different in each society, and their levels vary depending on the environment too. As such cultural factors play a vital role in determining such variables (Benedict, 34).
Abnormal Functions and Cultural Influence
Ruth Benedict also gives examples of abnormal functions such as delusion and sadism and how they are determined by different environments. Those who occupy a high position in the society can also be linked with extreme psychic characters that are coveted by other members of a particular group of people. Homosexuality is also used as perfect case scenario to create a credible basis for Benedict’s argument. According to her, a certain cultural setting determines the success of homosexual individuals (Benedict, 34). In environments, where they are given equal opportunities to other people, then they not only express their competence but also earn honor among fellow tribe’s people.
The Definition of Normality in Different Societies
Societies that regard homosexuals as outcasts hamper chances of their success even if they possess the right skills. Therefore, this poses a question of what is normal and abnormal in our societies. Another interesting example is how death was treated by the Kwakiutl people. In this society, it didn’t matter one had died of disease or injury, that misfortune had to be wiped by the death of another individual. This made powerful people like chiefs to kill certain people if, let’s say their prince(s) died. While using the evidence above, it, therefore, follows that what we call normality can only be defined by culture (Benedict 36-38).
Conclusion
Ruth Benedict’s argument is undeniable based on the evidence that she lays bare in her book. The examples that she gave in her argument are also evident in modern societies. All aspects of morality are determined by different cultural settings and environments. The author is right in the sense that we can't judge people from different backgrounds because of what we consider wrong because it might be right in their societies. It is also evident that the levels of acceptance towards certain people like homosexuals differ in different cultural settings. An individual tribe can’t exhaust all moral principles that exist in modern times. This also forms strong bases for what Louis Pojman referred to like diversity and dependency theses. Ruth Benedict’s evidence reached the standard of proof and is very convincing when we relate to past and modern societies. The same is also true when we compare civilized societies and communities that have preserved their cultures over time. We also need to relate to justifications of certain moral principles that exist in various societies to understand the underlying truth as to why such practices are acceptable (Shchipunov 58). Thus, whatever is morally right or wrong is determined by the society.
Louis Poujman's Perspective on Ethical Relativism
Louis Poujman poses a question; who’s to judge what’s right or wrong?’ He then creates a point of conflict towards the whole subject of ethical relativism. According to him, there are certain codes of principles that need to be followed for the peaceful and orderly conduct of individuals in the society. It is through this approach that we can exist harmoniously without cultural and moral frictions. The main objective morality should be based on avoiding lying and stealing from each other. Poujman claims that this is the most reliable methodology for us to achieve our desired goals in life. Poujman’s perspective is chiefly based on living in harmony and integrating interpersonal cooperation.
Striving for Universal Moral Principles
Louis Poujman then coins a new comparison between relativism and objectivism where he reiterates strongly that we should not let our cultural practices supersede our moral principles. There are some principles that should be considered universally right in any social context. Such principles should guide our normal actions and how we live with fellow human beings (Gowans 45). Therefore, Poujman poses very strong arguments that may necessitate avoidance of conclusion. This is because; first he agrees that different cultures have a direct impact on the moral behavioral mechanisms but then poses a whole new question on our moral principles.
Understanding the Complexity of Ethical Relativism
The resultant implications of arguments explained thereof are profound and require a deep analysis if they influence our thinking on ethical relativism. Ruth Benedict’s argument is acceptable in the society to a certain degree. We can all agree that diversity affects normality. Moral principles are determined by different environments and cultural settings. Those arguments require defense with special consideration of specific aspects of morality while shying away from absolute disagreement. Poujman’s objection also creates two sides; truth and controversy (Pojman $ Fieser 274). We can therefore not restrict ourselves to total disagreement when it comes to views of Ruth Benedict and Louis Poujman.
The Influence of Cultural Truths on Normality
The reality our respective societies is that there are various underlying truths and interpretations of normality in different settings. Sets of action typologies can and will never be similar in all societies in the world. Some philosophers advocate for an emphasis on moral diversity instead of moral disagreements to moral principles in different communities. These arguments are also acceptable because motivations play a vital role in the behavioral patterns of different individuals in the society. It is an amalgamation of these principles that determine the entire normality entity of a certain community. It is also hard to determine whether logic should rise above our perceptions of what is right and wrong. Ruth Benedict’s explanations about patterns of culture are evident in our cultures and reasons indicated thereof are beyond reasonable doubt.
Works Cited
Benedict, Ruth. "Patterns Of Culture.." Journal of Educational Sociology 9.5 (1936): 314. Web
Gowans, Chris. "Moral Relativism." Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2018. Web. 28 Mar. 2018.
Shchipunov, O.K. "Ethical Relativism: Philosophical Approaches To The Study." Contemporary problems of social work 1.2 (2015): 58-62. Web.
Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Cengage Advantage Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Nelson Education, 2017.
