Arguments Regarding Morality

The following two arguments regard the concept of morality of the human race and whether or not it is something which can be easily classified into groups of unmoral or moral or in Ruth Benedicts case, a concept which cannot be classified simply as black and white and therefore, cannot be used when describing human morality. Unlike Ruth Benedicts view, James Rachels points out three cons which come from Ruths Benedicts cultural relativism and also finds two truths that comes with it.

Ruth Benedict presents the theory of moral relativism which states moral principles are based on the common beliefs and practices of social systems. Ruth Benedict defines this in her own words, ‘The very eyes with which we see the problem are conditioned by the long traditional habits of our own society'(Pojman and Vaughn 137). In other words, she explains how once they see some difference, which is based on personal opinions, they may think the difference is a “problem.” However, our concept of what we even consider a “problem” actually comes from different traditional habits. Therefore, when people try to judge others morality, people should understand that they cannot use their own cultural structure as they can vary based on historical backgrounds and different situations these groups undergo. This indicates that those with different situations could have varying forms of morality.

Ways in which Benedict is able to enforce her theory is the utilization of examples including homosexuality and murder. These are powerful examples in her favor as both are regarded by many in our society and others as immoral. Benedict states that homosexuality in ancient Greece, as demonstrated by Plato’s Republic, was widely accepted and did not have any negative associations with it like it has had in our own society (Pojman and Vaughn 134). Another example which is used by Benedict is the Kwakiutl culture. The Kwakiutl culture is one which has been able to maintain without contact with what would be considered the current standards of the majority of civilizations. Due to this it has remained uninfluenced by what belief systems have been cultivated from said cavillations. To the Kwakiutl the death of a loved one is considered an “insult” which is to be dealt with by committing murder despite the death being caused by something inevitable such as natural causes (Pojman and Vaughn 135). This is another great example in favor for cultural relativism as if that were to occur in our culture it would be considered unmoral to take someone else life for something that had nothing to do with them.

According to Benedict, each of these examples successfully demonstrates how what is considered immoral in one society may be considered moral to another. Overall, this summarizes what is considered normal or abnormal behavior will depend on the choices of these social systems, or what Benedict calls the ‘idea-practice pattern” of the culture (Pojman and Vaughn 132). This means that most individuals can be altered by their surroundings and the majority of mankind has the readiness to take any shape that is taught or presented to them.

Unlike Benedicts clear view that cultural moral relativism is true, Rachel analyzes her points and creates his own understanding of morality. Rachels analyzes the structure of ethical relativism, which he calls ‘cultural relativism,’ to show that the claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish. Thus, Rachels states that ‘the cultural differences argument,’ is invalid, for even if there is broad cultural disagreement over morality, it does not prove that there is no truth in the matter, any more than the fact that flat-earthers disagree with round-earthers proves that there is no independent truth of that matter (Pojman and Vaughn 142).

Rachel concludes that the argument for cultural relativism has aspects of it which happen to not make sense. By this he states that if we, as a race, did in fact not believe one thing happened to be more moral than another, then there would not be any moral progress. With this thought he then states that social reform would also be reconsidered. There would be no such thing as reforms including Martin Luther King Jr., who sought to change society for the better. His overall idea of change would be incorrect by the constraints made by cultural realists. It would also lead to several questions as what if cultural relativism truly existed how would they explain such actions and movements made before and even till this day.

Rachels also uses the example of the rise of the Nazi army to emphasize his stated points. The torture placed upon those of Jewish belief has been something many would be considered a moral atrocity and should never be permitted to be repeated in history. However, Rachels comments that a true cultural relativist cannot criticize this event, or any similar events, even if it is a situation which would be considered slightly immoral (Pojman and Vaughn 143).

From this, Rachels has strengthened his argument against cultural relativism. This also strengthens Rachels own ideas of objective moral realism. This creates a moral objective standard that we can use to differentiate between right and wrong, and in turn we can be critical of other societies.

In summary viewing things now from Rachels point of view, despite some people believe or say that slavery is ethically right and others disagree, it does not follow that no value judgment is better than any other on reasoned grounds, it also does not follow that we must believe that ethics is nothing but opinions. If we saw cultural relativism in the way Rachels defines it, then we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally wrong. This would then implicate that tragedies such as the enslavement of Indians by Americans or the Holocaust should not be held in a negative light but simply, the morals that those particular people happen to have. Cultural relativism would then be something we would be unable to criticize even it happen to be our own or that Jim Crow laws were wrong when the majority favored them, and also forbids us from offering an ethical critique of the war or any other government policy that have majority support.

If we held cultural relativism through Rachels definition then we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. That would mean what would make something wrong is the fact that people say it is in fact wrong. However, if all these unacceptable consequences follow from holding the cultural relativism through Rachels definition, then we do have good reasons to reject much like Rachels has based on his points.

Despite these arguments against cultural realism, James Rachels believes that in its core, despite different cultural approaches the morals are the same. The example of Eskimos is used as they often kill perfectly normal infants and in particular girls which would be considered morally incorrect in other cultures (Pojman and Vaughn 145). However, observing the reasons of cultures actions proves the reason as to why it is done this way. An Eskimo family protects their family but live in a harsh environment with limited food as well as nomadic making it hard to carry more than one baby an endangerment of their lives (Pojman and Vaughn 145). Eskimo males also tend to die sooner than the females making male children in higher demand in order to sustain their society.

Overall, both provide compelling arguments which have the potential to shift ones thoughts yet despite the difference between Ruth Benedict and that of James Rachels, they both have the same underlying beliefs. They both believe that different cultures do things in a way which is approved successful and sustains their society.

Bibliography

1. Pojman, Louis P., and Lewis Vaughn. The Moral Life: an Introductory Reader in Ethics and
2. Literature. 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2014.