Nguyen 1
Quang Nguyen
Gregory B Spendlove, Instructor
Philosophy 1130-003
7 July 2010
Relativism
In the article, Ruth Benedict showed her beliefs that people are plastic, so they tend to
follow the morality of the society where they are born. Values of the morality are shaped by
culture. Therefore, she believes that morality is culturally relative.
Nowadays, modern social anthropology has become more and more a study of the
varieties and common elements of culture environment, and the effect of these in human
behavior. As the matter of fact, one of the most striking facts emerges when studying the
widely varying culture is the ease with which our abnormal function in other cultures.
Cataleptic and trance phenomena are illustration of the fact that those whom we
consider abnormal can function normally in other culture. That’s because the abnormality of
our culture is the base of their social structure, and their normality is culturally built on that
base. For example, in the society where no one may work together and no one may share with
another, there’s a man who likes to help the others. In our society, he may be considered as a
pleasant man. However, in that society, they think he is silly and definitely crazy. This example
can indicate that normality and abnormality are culturally defined.
No one civilization can possibly cover the whole potential range of human behavior.
Every society begins with some slight different direction from one or another society. It carries
Nguyen 2
further and further, and then complete itself based on the chosen basic, discarding those types
of behavior that are uncongenial.
We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially
habits. A civilization is well integrated and consistent within itself. Finally, it will initiate some
particular actions which are aberrant traits in our culture. However, each of these traits will
consider normal in this culture. A person whose characteristics are not congenial to that
selected type of human behavior in that community is deviants, although their personality may
be good in another civilization.
In the article “who’s to Judge”, Louis Pojman discussed and opposed that moral truth is
relative to conventional relativism or subjective relativism. He questioned “who’s to judge
what’s right or wrong”, and then he replied that “we are.”
For analyzing Relativism, he derives the argue that:
1. What is considered morally right or wrong varies from society to society, so that
there are no moral principle accepted by all society
2. All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance.
3. Therefore, there are no universally valid principles which apply to all people
everywhere at all time.
After that, he discussed about Subjectivism. Subjectivists believe that morality is
dependent on individual him or herself. Subjective Ethical Relativism leads to absurd
consequences that make morality is a useless concept because no interpersonal criticism or
Nguyen 3
judgment is logically possible. Subjectivism implies that individuals only aim for their own good,
and try to take the others down before they do you. However, the fact that we develop in
families, mutual communities, and that we often feel for each other make subjectivism
incoherent.
Conventionalism claims that valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural
acceptance, recognizes the social nature of morality. An Anthropologist, Melville Herskovits,
argued that we should be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures. However, Louis thought
that that is not a good argument. He pointed out that if morality simply is relative to each
culture then if that culture does not have principles of tolerance, members in that culture will
be no obligation to be tolerant. Relativists fail not only to criticize those who are intolerant, but
also the people who is a member in the culture that have heinous principle. Moreover,
conventionalism seems to entail that the reformers are always wrong since they go against the
tide of cultural standards. Sometimes the individual stand alone with the truth, but if relativism
is correct, the truth is always with the crowd, the individual is always wrong. Another problem
is that one person can belong to several societies with different principles. If principles in those
societies are contract to each other then the action of this person will be judged both right and
wrong. Finally, how large must the group be to be considered as a sub-culture or society?
Conventionalism seems to be easily reduced to Subjectivism, and as we can see above,
Subjectivism leads to the demise of morality.
Louis Pojman then came back with three theses of relativism listed above. He argued
that although Cultural Relativism seems to be the fact, but it does not by itself establish the
Nguyen 4
truth of Ethical Relativism because some cultures simply lack correct moral principles. Then he
questioned to imply that people can come close to the truth of scientific matters, so we can
come close to the truth of moral matter.
Finally, he came back with the question “who’s to judge what’s right or wrong?” His
answer is “we are” with the basic of the best reasoning we can bring forth, with sympathy and
with understanding.
I think in both articles, the authors did a good job in presenting and defending their
arguments. I especially like their examples. They are either interesting studies or popular
personalities so that we can easily relate them to what the author wants to say. Besides, they
go straight to the points that are needed illustrated. Therefore, it is easier to follow their
arguments.
In my opinion, Relativism seems to get close the truth of morality. However, there are
some problems with Relativism. Is Culture Relativism can help us decide whether an action is
morally right, or is it just help us decide that action is considered normal in that culture? A
normal action doesn’t mean that it is morally right. For example, somehow a culture is built on
the base that considers murder is normal. We know that murder is morally wrong. Therefore, in
that case, although murder is culturally normal, it’s clearly not moral.