Allen 1
Ryan Allen
Greg Spendlove
Phil 1130-001
February 22, 2011
Summary Papers of Benedict and Pojman
In her article, “A Defense of Moral Relativism” Ruth Benedict Argues moral standards
are culturally defined as standards of what is normal in a culture and social organization and it
differs from culture to culture. Benedict gives an example of homosexuality in the American
Indian tribes. “Berdache” as called by the French was “men-woman” who was men that took the
dress and occupations of woman, even marrying other men and lived with them. They were
socially placed, not left exposed to conflicts. According to Benedict, what is moral in one society
may be immoral in another.
Benedict’s arguments are, society’s acceptance on normal behavior varies in culture to
culture. Each culture would themselves decide what is moral and immoral. Thus, morality is
relative to the culture and meaning society is the sole creation of morality. This makes morality
meaningless, since it can change at any given time. Only in superficial levels could morality
exist. In society, why follow any moral action? Well if most of society is acting with moral
actions then the actions would be normal, therefore moral.
In his article, “Who’s to Judge” Louis Pojman examines central notions of a couple thesis
of relativism. Diversity thesis which identified with cultural relativism is the fact that right or
wrong rules differ from society to society. Next dependency thesis asserts individuals emanate
right or wrong principles from culture acceptance. For example, Orientals show respect by
covering the head and uncovering the feet, whereas occidentals do the opposite, both adhere to
Allen 2
principles of respect for deserving people. Ethical relativist concludes there are no absolute
universal moral principles binding for all cultures or people at all times.
Conventional ethical relativism, Pojman asserts that moral or immoral is justified by
virtue of their culture acceptance. But if “Conventional Ethical Relativism” is accepted pojman
states that it fails because tolerance of racism, genocide, oppression of the poor, and advocacy of
war are as equally moral as their opposites. We couldn’t morally criticize people, if the
subculture decided that a nuclear was somehow morally acceptable. Pojman also states, one
person can belong to several societies with different values which oppose different laws.
Pojaman gives an example if Mary is a U.S. citizen and a member of the Roman Catholic
Church, she is wrong (qua catholic) if she chooses to have an abortion and not-wrong (qua
citizen of U.S.A.) if she acts against the teaching of the church on abortion.
In the end Pojman’s argument is cultural relativism and ethical relativism does not entail
each other based on subject cultural differences. Next, that dependency thesis is mistaken
because of the moral guidelines shard by different cultures. And that there is a universal moral
principle.
Pojman questions again “Who’s to Judge?” Answer, We Are. With common human
nature to solve problems, flourish, tolerance, sympathy and understanding.