Lecture Objectives: After learning this material you will be able to:
1. Present the basic insight of ethical subjectivism: “What may be right for
you may be wrong for me depending on our respective feelings.”
2. Understand that ethical subjectivism is not an ethics of tolerance for
individual differences, because tolerance itself is a universal principle and
universality is denied by ethical subjectivism.
3. Discuss the differences between ethical skepticism and ethical
subjectivism.
4. Understand that cultural relativism is an ethical theory that states that our
ethical values stem from our culture and that morality is simply socially
approved customs.
5. Compare and contrast sociological relativism with cultural relativism.
6. Reflect on the meaning of social Darwinism, especially in terms of politics.
7. Outline the meaning of a “moral community.”
8. Be able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of ethical relativism.
In the last lecture we presented an integral framework for the understanding of
ethical theory. We also studied the process of moral reasoning and tried to gain a
better understanding of how our resistance to moral reasoning often takes on
strong emotional overtones. Finally, we learned about quite a few fallacies that
interfere with making clear and analytical moral arguments. In this lecture we will
explore the world of ethical relativism, a worldview that is very prevalent today in
the United States. First we will learn about ethical subjectivism and then cultural
relativism. In the process we will delve deeper into our own values, trying to
understand what it is on which we are able to build them and hold them together.
Ethical Subjectivism
Many times we feel something is right or wrong with a clarity that is not based on
rational arguments but on an inner certainty that is self-validating. We “just
know.” Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “we
consider these truths self-evident,” meaning that these truths should be obvious
to anyone who looks within and thinks about Jefferson’s claims.
“Ethical subjectivism, also known as individual relativism, makes the claim that
people can never be mistaken about what is morally right or wrong because
there are no objective or universal moral standards or truths, instead, there are
only opinions. An opinion expresses what a person believes. It does not have to
be backed up by reasons or facts. What is right or wrong for one particular
individual is a matter of personal taste, rather like our preferences for particular
foods or hairstyles” (Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings,
Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2008] p. 77. Hereafter
referred to as Boss). The question we will be asking ourselves is whether this
type of moral relativity is true or not. It does not really matter if you prefer
Mexican food to Chinese food. That kind of relativity is just fine. But does it
matter whether you believe women should be subject to men? Is that just a
1
matter of preference? What about torture, child abuse, and female circumcision?
Are these kinds of activities simply a matter of personal approval? If not, on what
basis can we judge them as good or bad? This is the ethical dilemma facing us in
this course, and especially in this lecture.
People who tend to “just know” certain things are right or wrong naturally trust
this inner intuition because it seems so obvious. This can lead them to hold the
position of an ethical subjectivist. “Ethical subjectivists argue that there are no
absolute standards by which to judge a person’s moral preferences. If a person
sincerely believes something to be morally correct for him or her, then this in
itself causes it to be morally true” (Boss, p. 78.) This makes sense, because it
just seems so right for us. We don’t usually see the complications until our inner
certainty runs into someone else’s inner certainty, but their inner certainty is the
opposite of ours! Then we have a problem.
When two people see the same thing in opposite ways are they both right? If it is
a preference for a vacation spot, then they are both probably right and we can
say happily “to each his or her own.” But when it comes to something such as
racism, are both parties right? Are people who think Blacks should be subject to
Whites equally right with those who disagree? It is because of situations like this
that “the great majority of moral philosophers disagree with ethical subjectivism.
These philosophers maintain that there are fundamental moral standards by
which we can judge people. Philosopher Renford Bambrough, for example,
claims that almost all of us would agree that it would be immoral to perform a
painful operation on a small child without an anesthetic because we intuitively
know that torturing children is wrong. There is no need to prove to someone that
torturing children is wrong; it is self-evident” (Boss, p. 78.)
This implies that there are universal standards that all people and cultures
recognize. But is this true? That is what we are attempting to study. One
approach to the problem is to simply ask ourselves why we are resistant to
universal values, at least in the modern Western world. The answer is that we
hold freedom as one of our greatest values and we don’t want other people
telling us what to think or how to act.
Individualism
In the United States there has been a history of promoting the values of
individualism. The goal is to have people think for themselves and not be simple
conformists. “Personal tastes or feelings are the only standard. If it feels right, do
it. There are no universal moral truths, only individual moral preferences or truths
based on each person’s own opinion and feelings” (Boss, p. 78.) People are not
supposed to conform to what they are told is right and good, but they are to
struggle to find their own personal truth and then live from that discovery rather
than from some other authority’s rulebook.
2
This instinct for individual truth is not simply an assertion of ego over community.
It also represents an attempt to move away from cultural imperialism and
personal superiority. As a result, “many people confuse ethical subjectivism with
an ethics of tolerance and respect for others’ lifestyles - an ethics that is often
summed up by the phrase ‘live and let live’” (Boss, p. 81.) This seems like a very
good value that many of us would subscribe to, and that is why we need to use
our critical thinking skills to go below the surface and analyze what is happening
here.
Notice what is happening. We are accepting the truth of relativity on the basis of
a universal value. “Tolerance is a universal moral principle. The statement ‘live
and let live’ implies a universal duty to respect others, regardless of how we
personally feel toward them, and a duty not to harm them either directly or by
interfering with their rights to pursue their own interests. According to ethical
subjectivism though, universal moral duties do not exist” (Boss, p. 82.) Our
critical thinking skills reveal a basic contradiction. We can’t logically hold both
views because they cancel each other out.
It appears that something is not quite correct in how we are thinking about this.
What is going on? “Some people also confuse ethical subjectivism with the
obviously true observation that individuals do hold different views about what is
morally right and morally wrong. In the presence of moral disagreement, when
asked if a particular person is right, some people will reply, ‘Well, they believe
they are right.’ When people say this, they are changing the topic from what a
person ought to do to what a person believes is the case - thus committing the
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion” (Boss, p. 82.) This is a good example of why we
spent so much time learning about the various fallacies that can emerge in our
moral reasoning. They have a way of infecting much of our thought processes!
We are not simply talking about describing the world. “Ethical subjectivism is a
moral theory and it is prescriptive - that is, it is about what a person ought to do.
The statement that a person believes something to be right, on the other hand, is
descriptive. Ethical subjectivism, however, goes beyond the merely descriptive
by claiming that sincerely believing or feeling that something is right makes it
right (or true) for that person. By doing this, critics argue that ethical subjectivism
fails to recognize the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive statements”
(Boss, p. 82.)
The fact that we really believe something to be right is true in the sense of being
a factual statement. We really do believe that. But this does not allow us to make
the further to jump to “therefore, it is right.” This would negate all that we have
learned from the past. For example, the vast majority of people used to truly
believe that slavery was right, that women were not as smart as men, and that
children were simply the property of their fathers. But surely that does not make it
right and good. It also does not mean that people holding these views were
insincere. They probably really saw the world in this way. By what standard are
3
we able to look at past values and see that they were not as moral as once
believed?
Moral Uncertainty
Another issue we will address is referred to as moral uncertainty. To say that we
do not know what is right and good is not to say there is no right and good. It
simply means we don’t know and to take it further than this is to go too far.
“Ethical subjectivism is not the same as moral uncertainty of the type that may
occur when we are confronted with a moral dilemma” (Boss, p. 82.) When
someone comes to us for moral advice and we simply tell them to do what they
know is right, we could be saying two different things. On one hand, we could
simply be saying that whatever they decide is right for them. This is relativity. But
on the other hand, we might simply be acknowledging that we trust them and
their own integrity to do the right thing.
“In other words, don’t confuse trusting someone’s moral judgment in a particular
situation with ethical subjectivism. It is also logically inconsistent to claim that
morality is a matter of opinion in one case but not in another. If all moral values
are a matter of individual preference, as the ethical subjectivist claims, then
morality is relative in all situations, not just for moral dilemmas” (Boss, p. 82.)
This is why it is important to keep our moral confusion in perspective and not get
tricked into thinking that because we don’t know, that means there is no truth to
be discovered.
It is all too easy to take our confusion as the final impression on certain matters.
We have to keep in mind that “disagreement about moral values, in itself, does
not imply that objective moral truths do not exist” (Boss, p. 83.) There are all
kinds of situations where we already accept this. For example, in medical
experiments concerning a new drug we know that some scientists think it will
work while others are doubtful. This does not mean that both are correct. It just
means we have not figured it out yet. We hold out hope that eventually we will
know whether a medicine will help us or not. This same attitude of waiting to
understand is helpful in ethics as well.
The Kitty Genovese Syndrome
Another important issue to be concerned with in ethics in general and ethical
subjectivism specifically deals with the matter of responsibility. How do we hold
ourselves, let alone others, responsible in a world where good and bad are
subjective? “Indeed, moral responsibility, in terms of assigning moral blame or
praise, becomes a moot issue with ethical subjectivists because there are no
objective standards against which to measure the morality of a person’s actions;
ethical subjectivism therefore precludes passing judgment on other people’s or
even on our own actions” (Boss, p. 83.) Our whole legal system in the United
States is based on the fact that we think we can hold people responsible for their
4
actions. But how can we actually do that if there is no objective right and wrong?
One way to do so is to equate legality with morality. We have a social contract
that says that certain action are considered wrong by us and if you go against
these laws we can hold you responsible. This goes with the idea that we can vote
on morality. If a majority of people think something is wrong, then that makes it
wrong. This helps us over the initial hurdle of responsibility, but it leaves other
problems we will have to face further on in this lecture.
Ideas concerning our level of responsibility are important to think about because
they are not simply intellectual exercises. These ethical ideas influence how we
live our lives. “Ethical theories do not exist in abstraction. Ethical theories inform
and motivate our real-life decisions and actions. They shape the way we define
ourselves, as well as our community and our ideas of community responsibility.
In ethics education, romantic sentimentalism usually takes the form of the values
clarification or value-neutral approach, where students are encouraged to
express their opinions without fear of censorship or judgment. Values are
considered something one clarifies rather than discovers. Moral truths are based
on inner feelings rather than on a shared objective reality. Any opinion is just as
valid as any other” (Boss, p. 93.) It is good to encourage children to discuss
moral issues and wrestle with these ideas. But that is not the same as claiming
that their answers are equivalent to moral truths.
Studies have also shown that simply discussing moral values does not bring
about the growth that educators were hoping it would. “This popular approach to
moral education has been shown to have no effect on a student’s actual moral
development and, in fact, can even retard its development. Ethical subjectivism,
by retreating into pure inner or subjective feelings, neglects to take into account
the social context that gives moral sentiments their value in the first place. To
remove morality from the social realm is to condone isolation and apathy in the
face of others’ pain” (Boss, p. 94.) Unfortunately we have some real life situations
that illustrate that the rather modern trend of ethical subjectivism may be leading
to disturbing results, such as apathy concerning ethics and living a good life.
The most famous case of public apathy has been given the name the “Kitty
Genovese Syndrome.” This is a reference to a woman who was assaulted in
New York City over a period of a half hour during which time she was constantly
yelling for help. Thirty-eight of her neighbors heard her cries, but not one of them
even called the authorities. In a subjective world people do not want to interfere
with what other people do. They don’t want to take a stand because they think:
“After all, who am I to judge?” There is more going on here than subjectivism.
There are studies that show that people step up to help when they are alone
much more than when they are with others. Perhaps when there is a group of
thirty-eight people everyone assumes someone else will step up to help. But
there is still something ethical here to struggle with because this idea that other
people are responsible rather than myself comes from living in a certain ethical
environment. This is because so much of ethics has to do with duties. That is, I
5
am called upon to act in a certain way. If this calling is only a matter of whether I
personally relate to it or agree with it or not, then it can lead to some of the many
problems we all face today living in our modern society.
Critique of Ethical Subjectivism
Ethical subjectivism often sounds pretty good until we use our critical thinking
skills to discover some of the problems with it as an ethical theory, which can be
summed up in the following way.
“1. Ethical subjectivism incorrectly assumes that moral disagreement
necessarily implies that there are no universal moral standards. We can give
reasons for why people should not torture children. We might, for example, cite
the principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) or respect for the rights of others.
Or we could appeal to their sense of compassion. In each of these instances, we
do this because we have the expectation that the person we are trying to
convince acknowledges the same basic moral values that we do” (Boss, p. 96.)
But we can only have this expectation if there is something universal that we can
hold out as worthy of admiration.
We also need to make an important distinction. “What is often interpreted as
disagreement about basic moral principles is instead disagreement about the
application of these principles in particular situations” (Boss, p. 96.) Just because
we are not sure what to do does not mean we don’t have a sense of right and
wrong. You can see this particularly well in issues around parenting. Parents
often know the values they want their children to have but how to teach these
values is not always clear.
2. “Ethical subjectivism is based on the incorrect assumption that we
cannot be mistaken in our moral beliefs” (Boss, p. 96.) If we think something is
right then it is right for us according to the subjectivists. However, “when our
moral views change, we do regard our former views as mistaken” (Boss, p. 96.)
But how can we do this if our previous moral views were correct? In other words,
we allow for the fact that we can grow in our morality, that we are capable of
moral development. This implies that there is a moral good that we can move
closer to and this is only possible if there is something beyond our personal
opinion.
3. “We do pass judgment on our feelings and actions. At times, we judge
that it would be immoral to act upon certain feelings or desires” (Boss, p. 97.) We
all have had feelings that we know we shouldn’t act upon. Just because I am
feeling angry does not mean I then allow myself to act hurtfully. In other words, “if
morality is the same as feeling, then it makes no sense to restrain ourselves from
acting on our feelings. To restrain ourselves only makes sense if we are using
moral criteria or principles that are independent of our feelings” (Boss, p. 97.)
This means we have to question the value that says: “if something feels right, do
6
it” because a closer look reveals that our feelings, while important, are not a
reliable source for our ethical decisions. “In real life, we regard acting on certain
feelings and desires as immoral. Although moral evaluation can take a person’s
feelings into account, for the most part, we judge an action to be moral or
immoral independently of the agent’s feelings” (Boss, p. 97.) One of the most
difficult things we have to learn when we are young children is to restrain
ourselves and practice self-discipline when it comes to acting out our feelings.
4. “Ethical subjectivism is disastrous for the weak and defenseless”
(Boss, p. 97.) When you think about it, you notice that if ethical subjectivism were
true then it would limit morality to those who were actually able to implement their
desires. The more powerful can use their subjective desire to hurt those beneath
them anyway they want simply because they feel like it.
This does not mean that everything concerning subjectivism is wrong. “Almost
all moral theories contain at least a grain of truth, but the problem with many
theories arises when theorists mistake this grain of truth for the whole truth.
Ethical subjectivists, for example, are correct in noting that morality begins with
the individual experience and that these experiences are sometimes at variance
with one another. Ethical subjectivists’ belief in the basic goodness of human
nature and that our sense of morality is innate may also contain more than just a
grain of truth at least for the 96 percent of us who have a conscience” (Boss, pp.
96-97.) But we have to find an ethical way of life that accounts and holds
responsible people who seem to be missing a social conscience (sociopaths)
and people who disagree with one another.
Our conscience and our experiences, especially our formative ones with family
and early schooling, are very important. “But moral experience and moral growth
do not end with our limited individual experience. Nor are we as humans infallible
in discerning the moral voice within us. There seem to be other voices, from both
within and without, that compete with our conscience or sense of morality. For us
to develop morally, our sense of what is right and wrong must be nurtured, as
well as challenged, by our community” (Boss, pp. 97-98.) This is why morality is
difficult and why people struggle with ethical issues. If it were easy we could turn
our moral decisions over to a computer.
As we move forward in our class we will have to keep in mind that the conclusion
of most philosophers and religious leaders states: “Ethical subjectivism, if taken
seriously, is a dangerous theory. It not only isolates the individual but permits
people to exploit and hurt others without ever having to justify their actions or
stand in judgment” (Boss, p. 98.) We need to include our feelings, but we also
need to see beyond them. We have personal and cultural blind spots and it is
only when we are helped to see them that we can expand our awareness and let
our circle of compassion grow larger.
Cultural Relativism
7
Ethical subjectivism is very prevalent in our society, but it is not the only form of
relativism we need to discuss. It is often confused with cultural relativism, but this
is something different. Earlier I wrote that one way to hold people responsible
without universal morals is to simply vote on what will be good and bad and then
pass laws instituting these values. This is a form of cultural relativism. “Like
ethical subjectivism, cultural relativism looks to people for standards of right and
wrong. Subjectivists claim that individuals create their own moral standards;
cultural relativists argue that moral standards and values are derived from groups
of people or cultures. Public opinion, rather than private opinion, determines what
is right and wrong. There are no objective universal moral standards that hold
true for all people in all cultures. Morality, instead, is regarded as nothing more
than socially approved customs” (Boss, p. 100.)
These insights were especially popular, as we will see, among anthropologists.
Once we started exploring the world in a more open and academic way we
started to see that different cultures looked at ethics in different ways. The typical
and imperialistic way was to simply assume that our way was always better. But
many people began to see this as overly judgmental and problematic.
Different ways of viewing the world might be just that - different. That does not
make one way superior to another, and therefore morality might be simply local
rather than universal. “Because morality is nothing more than custom, we have
no grounds for judging the moral practices of another culture or another time
whether these practices be terrorism or slavery. If two cultures disagree about
what is morally right and there is no disagreement about the facts or definitions of
key terms, then there is no rational means for continuing the discussion or
reaching agreement. Cultural relativists do not argue merely that some moral
values are relative to the culture. Rather, they maintain that all moral values are
nothing more than cultural customs” (Boss, p. 101.)
It is obvious that different cultures have different ways of dressing, different
foods, and different customs. In a pluralistic world we can celebrate these
differences and enjoy the variety they bring to our lives. But is cultural variety the
same as cultural relativism when it comes to ethics? Can we not stand in
judgment of some practices, such as terrorism, simply because some people
think it is a valid moral option? To wrestle with these problems we will have to
define our terms; sometimes it helps to explore what something isn’t before we
explore what it is.
What Cultural Relativism Is Not
We might think that cultural relativism is about honoring the differences between
cultures and understanding that people see things in different ways from one
another. This is fine. But it is not the same as excusing things we disagree with
ethically. “Cultural relativism is not the same as excusing certain cultural
8
practices, such as slavery, on the grounds that the people of that culture
sincerely believe that what they are or were doing is morally acceptable.
Excusing entails granting an exemption or pardon from wrongdoing” (Boss, p.
102.) But there is nothing wrong with things being different. If we think they are
wrong, we need to excuse their behavior. We may not like the behavior of
another culture, but how can we condemn it if everything is relative?
Remember that we are not talking about describing differences, but about
prescribing them. This means that if a culture thinks something such as female
circumcision is good, then not only may they do it, but they should do it. “Cultural
relativists claim that these practices were actually morally right for the members
of that culture” (Boss, p. 102.) If we don’t like it then that only means we come
from a different culture with different social customs. It doesn’t mean there is
actually anything wrong with female circumcision, headhunting, or terrorism.
There is also a difference between respecting differences and tolerating evil.
“Cultural relativism is not the same as respect for cultural diversity. Cultural
relativism is sometimes mistakenly advocated on the grounds that it promotes
tolerance and respect for cultural diversity. However, this is based on a
misunderstanding of cultural relativism since this very tolerance may promote
intolerance and violation of human rights” (Boss, p. 103.) Tolerance is good, but
that does not mean we tolerate child abuse, rape and murder. Tolerance is a
wonderful quality until we make it into an absolute that is not balanced with other
values. “Stating that the customs of any culture are no better or worse than those
of any other precludes us from passing any judgment on repressive customs that
violate human rights and dignity” (Boss, 104.)
We once again have to use our critical thinking because the impulse behind
cultural relativity seems to be a good one and often feels right. Many of us were
raised with the idea that we should not judge others and we should be open to
what other cultures have to teach us. There is nothing wrong with these
aspirations. But there is a difference between trying new foods and music and
trying out headhunting while on a study abroad program! How we make these
distinctions is what we will be studying over the next few weeks. But it all begins
with being able to analyze our thinking about values such as respect and
tolerance.
We also see how qualities such as respect and tolerance point toward universal
values once again. “The fundamental and universal moral principle of mutual
respect for the dignity of individuals and their right to self-determination needs to
be part of any definition of cultural diversity. Respect does not extend to respect
for or tolerance of oppression and inequality within any culture” (Boss, p. 104.)
Why respect people unless it is because of the feeling and thinking that states
that all people have a basic right to be respected? How can we show respect for
this basic human right if we also tolerate policies that disrespect people and their
basic needs? We can’t have it both ways, and if we don’t look closely at what it is
9
we are seeking to do then cultural relativism often seems to be encouraging us to
have it both ways. We are supposed to respect differences, but if someone does
something against respect we can’t judge, because who are we to do so?
Defining Our Terms
How can we sort out what seems like a fundamental confusion? Where do we
start? It is always a good idea to define our terms. We have seen what cultural
relativism is not, so now let’s look at what it is. “Cultural relativism is not the same
as sociological relativism. Cultural relativism is a theory of philosophical ethics.
As such, it is concerned with what ought to be. Sociological relativism, in
contrast, is a theory in descriptive ethics, a branchy of sociology that is
concerned with what is. Descriptive ethics aims to discover and describe the
moral beliefs of a given society. Sociological relativism is simply the observation
that there is disagreement among cultures regarding moral values. Unlike cultural
relativism, sociological relativism draws no conclusions; it makes no judgments
about the rightness or wrongness of different cultural standards. Cultural
relativists presuppose that sociological relativism is true, but sociological
relativists do not necessarily accept cultural relativism as true” (Boss, p. 106.)
By noticing where cultures disagree we can learn a great deal. We may even
learn ways to improve our own ethical stances. Many countries, for example,
have national health plans that make sure all people receive basic medical care.
How does that make us feel about our society? Does it challenge us? Many
countries have eliminated capital punishment. Does this challenge us? Other
countries that do have capital punishment do it publicly during the half-time break
at sporting events. Should we try this out? Acknowledging differences can nudge
us to make improvements. But it can also help us see where other cultures need
to make improvements. It works both ways.
We also have to be aware that just because different cultures have different ways
of applying different ethical values, does not mean that there are not some
underlying universal patterns also worth studying. “Deeper analysis of the
differences in moral practices among cultures also reveals many similarities in
the fundamental moral principles. American anthropologist Clyde Kluckholn
(1905-1960) claimed that there are basic universal, transcultural moral standards
that are recognized in all cultures and that are binding upon all members of a
particular culture’s moral community. The existence of cross-cultural values does
not, in itself, disprove cultural relativism; however, the presence of these
apparently universally accepted values does strengthen the argument against
cultural relativism. ‘In no human group,’ Kluckholn notes, ‘is indiscriminate lying,
cheating or stealing approved’” (Boss, p. 106.) There are many examples of how
when first describing different customs, it looked as though very different moral
values were being discovered. A more in-depth examination revealed that it was
not so different after all.
10
For example, a classic anthropological study told of Eskimos allowing their elders
to die or be killed when they could no longer adequately function in their society.
This seems very harsh and it seems like a vastly different value system from our
modern value. But a closer look revealed that if they did not do this, then the
whole tribe was endangered. It is not as if they wanted to do this, but they had to
look at the greater good. One way this became clear was that this practice was
almost immediately dropped when these people found themselves in more
modern conditions where they could survive without doing this. In other words, it
was not because they didn’t care about their parents, but they simply had very
different conditions under which they had to function in order to survive. “It is now
apparent that much of what initially appeared to be disagreement about basic
moral standards may instead be the result of situational differences” (Boss, p.
108.) This is yet another example of why critical thinking is so important in ethics.
Without asking good questions and going deeper into the issues it is all too easy
to assume that values might not have any common ground, when it appears that
many of our basic values are, in fact, shared by most if not all people.
Another area of confusion is often clarified by looking at motivations for certain
behavior. If people think that women are evil then they might behave in a way we
find atrocious as a way of counteracting that “evil.” They might persecute women,
or at least certain ones, only to prevent what they feel is a greater evil. This
happened a great deal during the witch burnings of Europe and early America.
Once people get their facts straight, immoral actions often stop. In other words
people were not motivated to do things we disagree with because they were evil
but because they misperceived what the good was. This does not justify the
actions by any means at all, but it allows us to see that the values that were
being protected were simply considered more important than the values that
need to be overridden. What we took for a lack of morality was based simply on
an ignorance of what the good was.
This is why we need to keep perspective when we study different ethical systems
and be aware of the context in which people live their lives and make their moral
choices. “Very few ethicists believe that morality is completely autonomous - that
is, independent of its particular context. As moral decision makers, we live in a
world of particulars. Social settings, individual circumstances, cultural values,
environmental conditions, and factual and religious beliefs vary tremendously
from culture to culture. Acknowledging the influences of these factors in shaping
the particular moral practices and values of a culture does not imply that there
are no underlying basic universal moral standards. Universal moral standards,
rather than determining the exact content of a culture‘s moral values and
customs, provide general guidelines and set limits upon the values and customs
that are morally acceptable within their particular context” (Boss, pp. 108-109.) If
we want to find universal values we are more likely to do so when we look not at
a specific behavior, but at the motivations for specific behavior. What are the
underlying principles?
11
Social Darwinism
One of the things that gave such strength to cultural relativism was that it
became an acceptable alternative to the movement known as Social Darwinism.
“According to Darwin, human instincts, including the moral sense, are nothing
more than response structures that have in the past contributed to the survival of
the species. The concept of the ‘good,’ instead of being something peculiar to
human nature or part of our ‘divine’ nature, is simply a means of the perpetuation
of the species. Morality, in other words, does not exist in some abstract realm but
is a part of the natural world and is intimately linked to our struggle for survival
within it” (Boss, p. 110.) Morality is just another way to help us survive. How true
this might be is debatable, as we will see later in this class, but for now it is only
important to note how this theory was used to justify European and American
imperialism.
How did this happen? Well it was not directly from Darwin, but how others
developed his thought. “Social Darwinists, such as biologist Thomas H. Huxley
(1825-1895) and philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), took evolutionary
ethics one step farther. Social Darwinism rejects ethical relativism and instead
embraces an ethics based on one universal moral principle: survival of the fittest.
The social Darwinists expanded the idea of survival of the fittest from individuals
to whole societies. Societal fitness was defined by the Social Darwinists in terms
of worldly success and progress, which in turn were linked to moral superiority.
Much of what we attribute to Darwin, such as the idea of evolution as progress
and the survival of the fittest, came from Spencer and the social Darwinists”
(Boss, p.110.) This is because Darwin did not speak of progress so much as
adaptation to changing environments.
The Social Darwinists used the success of Western countries over other parts of
the world as proof that this is the way things were supposed to be, since Western
people believed themselves to be better than other people and that Western
values were better. Because they are better they can be imposed on people who
might not have or even want these same values. Cultural relativists wanted to
check this because they knew it was used to justify all sorts of atrocities. But the
birth of modern anthropology also played a role in the formation of cultural
relativism.
Ruth Benedict: Cultural Relativism as a Protest Against Social Darwinism
As anthropologists dug deeper into the societies they studied, often living with
various folks for long periods of time, they began to see the holes in social
Darwinism as a theory. Their distance from their normal Western lives also gave
them a chance to view the West with a more critical eye. “In her landmark book
Patterns of Culture, published in 1934, Benedict uncovered the inconsistencies in
the Social Darwinists’ claim that Western society is at a higher level of moral,
religious, and social evolution. She claimed that Darwin’s evolutionary theory
12
does not imply that morality is found in a greater degree in civilized societies”
(Boss, p. 112.) In fact, their initial studies focused so much on the differences,
that sociological relativism, a descriptive tool of the anthropologist, quickly took
the guise of cultural relativism, a prescriptive tool. In focusing on differences they
also missed, at least at first, the underlying common values. The Eskimo study I
discussed earlier makes this point. On the surface things look very different.
Probably because Benedict focused on these differences she “argued that there
are no objective, transcultural moral standards or rational criteria to analyze the
morality of a particular custom. Interpretation rather than analysis stands at the
top of the ‘thinking’ pyramid. Our culturally shaped interpretations or worldviews
about what is right and wrong are our reality. We thus have no grounds, other
than our own cultural norms, for judging the morality of a practice such as
cannibalism. Anthropologists such as Benedict and Sumner were not simply
promoting sociological relativism. They were not just saying that cannibals
believed that eating other humans was right: This is simply stating the obvious.
Instead, the cultural relativists claimed that cannibalism was, in fact, morally right
for cultures such as the Dobu of New Guinea, who apparently practiced
cannibalism before the arrival of the Europeans” (Boss, p. 114.) They might not
have been aware that they were making this switch from describing to
prescribing, but once they did, their work became a primary foundation of cultural
relativism.
Once again, we see that the impulse of these anthropologists was a noble one.
They wanted to go into these various tribal groups and not impose their own
values, not judge what they were seeing, but simply describe the reality they
found in front of them. But we now know that there was a certain naiveté in this.
“Once we begin to examine cultural relativism, it becomes clear that the early
advocates of their theory did not completely think through all the implications of
their position. Like the social Darwinists who used evolutionary ethics as a
means to legitimate European imperialism, cultural relativists also had a political
agenda. By advocating cultural relativism, anthropologists such as Benedict
wanted to stop imperialist practices and replace them with greater respect for
and tolerance of cultural differences. If moral values are relative to each culture,
then no culture’s values can be superior to those of any other culture. And if no
culture’s values are superior to those of any other, they reasoned, then Western
cultures have no justification for imposing their morality on other cultures.
However, as we noted earlier, tolerance for cultural diversity that is not grounded
in the universal principle of respect for human dignity necessitates tolerance of
cultural customs that violate basic human rights and dignity” (Boss, p. 116.)
In fact, they missed the fact that they were saying that their values of celebrating
cultural diversity were better than the values of Social Darwinism. Their values of
respecting ancient and tribal cultures were better than imperialism. But how can
they say these values are better than other values if they have no standard by
which to judge such values? Do you see that this is the same trap ethical
13
subjectivism fell into? It is the same trap because it is basically the same
argument on a collective level rather than on an individual level.
Cultural Relativism and the Moral Community
The idea I discussed above concerning how we need to look not just at behaviors
but at motivations is a way to begin to understand the question of how we think of
our moral community. What is our moral community? It is the group of people
who receive our care and concern. It usually starts with our family and then
moves in outward rings to include our friends and larger community until it stops.
Where it stops and why it stops is an interesting question, but for now we want to
see how this circle of care influences how we perceive ethics. In fact, what often
looks like different moralities is simply the fact that different people draw their
circles in different ways. “Variations in cultural norms are sometimes due to
differences in how cultures define their moral communities instead of differences
in basic moral standards. Cultural relativism defines the moral community in
ethnocentric terms. There are no universal or natural human rights. Someone, or
something, has moral value only because his or her society grants this status.
There is no source of moral value other than one’s culture. Those who are
granted moral status by their culture receive the protection and support of the
community” (Boss, p. 118.) Some people are in and some are out.
For example, we can even see this in the simple way of how we apply our laws in
the United States. Rights are based on citizenship. If you are a citizen then you
have certain rights, and if you are not, then you don’t share many of these rights.
Notice how this is not based on someone’s humanity, and it is not supposed to
be based on someone’s race or age or other such things, but just based on
citizenship. The circle is drawn at that limit when it comes to legal rights. This is
pretty straightforward. It is much more subtle and difficult to draw the line when it
comes to morality, but we see the same thing. Certain people in our moral
community receive our care and concern and those outside of it do not.
One way we judge a child’s moral development is by watching how they enlarge
their “mandala.” “The moral community of a culture can be represented by using
a mandala. Mandala is the ancient Sanskrit word for a circle that symbolizes the
cosmic order. The mandala includes within its borders all that is sacred or, in
moral culture’s moral community, beings who have the greater status in that
culture are placed toward the center of the mandala. As one moves further
toward the edges of the mandala, one’s moral value diminishes. Beings that are
outside the moral community are placed outside the circle” (Boss, p. 119.) Most
people place their family at the center and perhaps people of another race and
religion at the outer edges of their circle. While not at the center, they still might
include them in the sense of acknowledging their basic human rights. Animals,
plants, and nature are usually outside the circle, but this is beginning to change.
Many people now include their pets within the circle, but not other animals such
as insects and flies! The modern ecological movement is asking that people
14
enlarge their circles of care and community even more to include all of nature.
Wars are usually the result of countries putting the welfare of other countries’
citizens outside the circle of concern. In fact, they usually have to demonize such
people in order to get people to stomach the violence of war.
Slavery and the Holocaust
It is very easy to see how moral communities work when you look at the issues of
slavery and the Holocaust. “Slavery was legal for more than two centuries in
colonial America and later the United States. Yet, as any historian can tell you,
respect for human equality and a belief in justice were pre-Civil War American
values. These values were even written into the U.S. Constitution. What has
changed between now and then is not the basic moral principles but the
definition of moral community. Slavery could only be morally justified by
excluding the victims of slavery from the moral community” (Boss, p. 119.)
People often wonder how a good family could sleep at night knowing they had
slaves sleeping in shacks? Of course these people loved one another, felt
compassion, and did community service. But they only did it for the people inside
their moral community and Blacks were not included. Thankfully this changed.
We can enlarge our moral community.
Unfortunately this change works both ways and we can exclude those who were
once included. “The cultural definition of moral community is fluid; it can change
over time and even, in the case of ageism, over the course of a lifetime. For
example, African Americans who were once outside the moral community are
now inside, albeit at the margins. Unborn humans, who were once inside the
moral community and protected by law, are now outside. Our animal companions
and endangered species enjoy some protection from the moral community.
Farm animals, insects, and most wild animals, on the other hand, are excluded
from our culture’s moral community and may be squashed, poisoned, shot,
experimented upon, or raised in confining and cruel conditions without fear of
censure from those at the center of our moral community” (Boss, p. 121.)
The Jews were once a part of the moral community of Germany, but then over a
relatively short time they were excluded. By demonizing them and moving them
outside of the concerns of the moral community, most Germans managed to
ignore the great evil that was happening in their midst. Japanese-Americans
were in the American moral community, then moved out during World War II, and
now they have moved back in. Arab-Americans are currently in the American
moral community, but many believe they have been moved to the outer edge and
are worried that they may simply be pushed outside of the circle one of these
days. Groups on the edge we often refer to as the marginalized.
How we treat the marginalized, such as American farm workers, is one of the
paradoxes of cultural relativism. “The cultural definition of moral community is, to
a large extent, politically and economically motivated. Cultural relativism, in other
15
words, supports a definition of the moral community that serves primarily to
maintain the status quo. By doing so, cultural relativism protects the interests of
those in power while morally sanctioning the marginalization and exploitation of
other groups, thereby promoting ethnocentrism and legitimizing hatred and
discrimination as morally acceptable” (Boss, p. 122.)
Cultural relativism does not set out to do this of course, so it is very ironic, but
also why we need to be vigilant in ethics by looking closely at relativism. If our
culture says it is not O.K. to kill farm workers, but it is O.K. to have them work in
terrible conditions with no benefits and little pay so that we can keep food prices
low, who are we to say no to this? After all, it is our culture that determines
whether something is right or wrong and our culture has decided that this is O.K.,
apparently, otherwise it would be changed. It is hard to believe that something
that seems so noble -relativism - can lead to such thinking and behavior, but by
understanding this we can break the vicious cycle.
The Vicious Cycle
In our American culture those with money tend to be closer to the center of the
circle of moral community. They can afford to buy the protection and care they
need. But those who can’t afford to do this get moved further away. They are
then looked down upon. They don’t have the same access to resources as those
at the center and so they often will not succeed to the same extent. As a result
they are looked down upon, stereotyped perhaps as lazy and useless, and are
then moved further away from our circle of concern. “If morality is synonymous
with cultural norms, then the exclusion of whole groups of people from the moral
community should be fairly uncontroversial. Those in power should have no need
to try to convince themselves and others that certain groups deserve a lower
status. However, this is rarely the case. When a culture excludes or removes a
group of people from the moral community, the culture often feels compelled to
justify its actions even to the point of engaging in blatant doublethink. Indeed, the
group in power may even justify the exclusion of another group as being for their
own benefit” (Boss, p. 124.) This is another example of how we might actually
know there are universal values. Otherwise why would we need to justify our
actions as if they are wrong according to another standard?
The question of asking if some cultures are more moral than others is a crucial
one. It must be true if you ever feel the right to step in and tell someone else that
they have to stop what they are doing. If you feel that slavery is wrong, not just in
the United States, but anywhere, then you are saying that this value is better
than another culture’s values if they permit slavery. One area where we need to
be careful is that in condemning one practice such as slavery, we don’t condemn
the whole culture. We all have blind spots and so do cultures. “Cultural relativism
ignores the possibility that other cultures can teach Westerners valuable lessons
in how to live the good life and vice versa” (Boss, p. 126.) When we open to the
world we find that there are things we can teach and things we can learn.
16
Philosophy and Cultural Relativism
You may be familiar with some famous philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato,
so I thought it might be interesting to look at a couple of philosophers you may be
less familiar with. A philosopher from another century from North Africa that you
might not have heard of is Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406). “In his book The
Muqaddimah, Khaldun argued that nomadic cultures are morally superior to
sedentary, urban cultures. The customs of nomadic cultures such as the
Bedouins, he claimed, enhance good traits such as courage, cooperation, and
striving for justice; the customs of sedentary and urban cultures encourage
immorality. Sedentary people are more concerned with their own individual ends
and the indulgence in worldly pleasures. This preoccupation, Ibn Khaldun
suggested, leads to moral evils such as injustice, mutual aggression, greed, and
lack of courage” (Boss, p. 127.)
Many studies have shown that cities, while bringing about many good things, are
terrible places in terms of their influence on people. It is notable that the Kitty
Genovese case happened in New York City. One wonders if the same kind of
apathy would have happened in a small town. There are also many studies that
confirm that people act poorly in large crowds in a way they don’t when with
small groups or alone. This is where you find the riot mentality. This is why
ethical thinking encourages people to think for themselves and not simply accept
what their culture offers up to them.
When Europeans first came to America they had a superior attitude that caused
them to look down on the native people of this land. Slowly Americans have
learned that there was, and still is, much wisdom to be learned from these
indigenous people. “Sioux Indian philosopher John Fire Lame Deer likewise
regards the European American lifestyle as morally unacceptable. He argues that
the anthropocentric definition of moral community characteristic of the morality of
Whites is destructive not just to the environment but also to the humans who are
part of this environment. This destructive attitude of Whites toward nature and
our environment, he argues, is based upon the misconception that the earth, the
wind, the rocks, and the water are dead or inert. For the Sioux, these elements
are ‘very much alive,’ and worthy of moral respect. We are all physical matter.
Matter, in all its forms, has its own consciousness and life force” (Boss, p. 129.)
This belief that everything is alive - animism - is an example of how our beliefs
influence our ethics. If we really believed what Lame Deer is saying then we
would naturally treat the world of animals and nature with more respect because
they would be included in our circle of moral community.
What would a cultural relativist say here about these thinkers? “Can we learn
from philosophers such as Ibn Khaldun and John Fire Lame Deer? A cultural
relativist would simply dismiss what they say as being right only for them, but not
for us, because there are no transcultural moral standards. Plato, Ibn Khaldun,
17
and John Fire Lame Deer, on the other hand, claim that there are universal moral
standards that we can use to pass judgment upon other cultures. Rather than
dismissing a culture’s values as relevant only to the people living within that
culture, a universalist view of morality encourages us to listen to other points of
view and to attempt to understand other people. We should also be willing to
analyze and, if necessary, revise or reject our own cultural values in light of our
new understanding” (Boss, p. 129.) When we do this we have a way of teaching
and learning. We might realize that some of our values are worth exporting and
some need to be updated and improved by what we import.
The Holocaust and Disillusionment with Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism took some heavy hits from the 20th century. How philosophers
thought of the world before that violent century has to be reevaluated in light of
what we now know. How could Germany, a country that saw itself as the epitome
of civilization and superiority, sink to such low depths? How could the rest of the
world do nothing for so long? How could a world abundant in food allow so many
children to die of starvation everyday? We could go on and on, listing one atrocity
after another committed by the best nations and cultures, including the United
States.
“In 1945, the tribunal at the United Nations Nuremberg Trials put forth a list of
universal standards of justice that established parameters on the norms of
civilized behavior. The tribunal maintained that these standards - which
prohibited ‘crimes against humanity,’ ‘torture,’ ‘waging or preparing for an unjust
war’ - were not a cultural creation but universal moral standards and, as such,
binding on all people everywhere. According to the charter, we each have an
individual moral responsibility not to take refuge in any laws or customs of our
culture that run contrary to universal moral standards” (Boss, p. 134.) This is only
possible if the cultural relativists are wrong. Hitler had the support of his people,
so that would make him right in the eyes of a relativist, where morality is simply
the socially accepted norms. Nowhere is this seen with more clarity than with
Adolf Eichmann.
Eichmann was one of the men most responsible for carrying out Hitler’s plans for
the extermination of the Jews. It was Eichmann’s responsibility to collect the
Jews throughout Europe and transport them to the death camps. At the end of
the war he escaped with his family to South America, but was caught 15 years
later and brought to Israel for trial. “At his trial, Eichmann said that, although he
did initially have doubts about the extermination program, these doubts were put
to rest when he realized that all his friends and professional colleagues
supported the program. After all, he thought, ‘Who am I to judge?’ Nobody, not
even his pastor, ever reproached him for what he did in the performance of his
duties” (Boss, p. 136.) This is a horrible fallacy, the fallacy called the argument
from popularity. This means that because a majority of people think something is
right then it is right. But we have examples throughout history where the exact
18
opposite is true. In fact, most social reform movements are set in motion by small
groups of people, even single individuals, who claim a higher vision of the truth
and are willing to go against the majority.
If we allow our conscience to be informed by the “crowd,” the majority, by what is
popular, then we might very well silence our ability to grow in truth and wisdom
and develop our ethical values into allowing us to draw our circles of moral
community into ever growing circles of concern and compassion. “If justice is a
cultural creation, we then have no justifiable grounds for labeling Eichmann and
the Nazi culture unjust or immoral. All we can say is that the Nazi culture was no
better or no worse than our culture - just different” (Boss, p. 136.) Surely most
people do not want to be in a position of saying this.
Critique of Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism made a certain amount of sense as anthropologists explored
the world and people became aware of other ways of living life. Relativism comes
with a noble intention to respect and tolerate differences. It was certainly a good
antidote to Social Darwinism and the imperialism it led to. But hopefully now you
see that there are real problems with it as well, and here we will try to summarize
them.
1. “Cultural relativism is illogical. Disagreement among cultures does not
prove that objective, transcultural moral standards do not exist. To claim that they
do not exist is to commit the fallacy of ignorance. At the most, we can adopt an
initial position of ethical skepticism regarding the existence of objective moral
standards. By claiming that sociological relativism (what is) implies cultural
relativism (what ought to be), cultural relativists are guilty of committing the
naturalistic fallacy” (Boss, p. 137.) We have learned that what we thought were
different moral values were actually differences in how these moral values were
applied with the situation faced by various people and within the context of their
belief systems.
2. “Cultural relativism does not work in a pluralist society. In today’s world,
it is much harder to accept the claim of anthropologists like Ruth Benedict that
there is general agreement within each culture regarding moral values. In
modern cultures, pluralism is generally an acknowledged fact: The definition of
what constitutes a culture can vary from subculture to subculture and even from
person to person, and almost all of us are members of several cultures” (Boss, p.
138.) When a society is closed it is easier to get everyone to think the same way.
But we have a mix of so many people and values in the United States that it is
impossible to do this. This is one reason why you are not supposed to talk about
politics or religion at family gatherings. There is usually too much disagreement!
So what is relative to our community? What is our community? Cultural relativism
dissolves into individual subjectivism, and we have already studied the many
problems with that.
3. “Cultural relativism confuses custom with morality. Most of us
distinguish between moral values and customs or nonmoral values such as
19
marriage customs, food preferences, religious rites, lifestyles, and preferences in
fashion and music. By identifying morality with custom, cultural relativists draw
behavior into the moral realm that may be outside the scope of morality. A
custom that is inconvenient or even offensive is not necessarily immoral. Nude
bathing, cross-dressing, and the use of obscene language in our own society, for
example, are not necessarily immoral even though they may offend some people
and run contrary to the norms and even the law in some places” (Boss, p. 138.)
This means there are areas where we want to tolerate, even celebrate, diversity.
Knowing what the difference is between this and moral matters is what the rest of
this course is about.
4. “People act more morally when others are not around. Special groups,
rather than encouraging us to behave morally, actually seem to inhibit helpful
behavior. Our primary motivation for helping others seems not to be social
pressure or cultural norms but a sense of personal responsibility that tends to be
diffused, rather than reinforced, when one is part of a crowd” (Boss, pp. 138139.) If our morality is culturally formed (rather than informed) then it is curious
that culture and society actually has a negative influence on the behavior of
individuals.
5. “Cultural relativism does not correctly describe how we make moral
judgments. We do pass judgment on the ‘moral’ norms of our own and other
cultures. When we make a judgment, we do not do so by examining the customs
and laws of, say, North Korea or by checking the latest polls to see how the
majority of people in that country feel about a certain practice. Nor do we
necessarily judge other cultures in light of our own norms. When we make these
judgments, we generally do so by appealing to transcultural values such as
justice and respect for human dignity rather than to cultural norms” (Boss, p.
140.) When a country feels the need to justify its actions to the world, this shows
that it feels there is a standard it has to live up to. This is also why “international
pressure” often really does help in a situation. In the United States local pressure
works the same way. People were able to turn away from issues concerning civil
rights if they did not actually see it. But once news shows started showing police
dogs and fire hoses attacking unarmed and nonviolent citizens exercising their
rights, people applied pressure and things began to change.
6. “There are moral values that seem to exist in all or most known
societies. The degree of variance among moral values is not as extreme as
cultural relativists claim. Many extremes of behavior - such as cannibalism,
human sacrifice, and unrestricted sexual activity among children - that have been
used to illustrate the irreconcilable differences between moral values in Western
and ‘primitive’ cultures have never been documented by reliable sources. Indeed,
some people, when they first come into prolonged contact with people from
different cultures or subcultures, are surprised at the extent of shared moral
values” (Boss, p. 140.) This is another good example of why we need to use
critical thinking in our ethical deliberations. We need to ask good questions and
get the facts before we rush to judgment.
7. “Cultural relativism is divisive and creates an us/them mentality.
Because cultural relativism rules out the possibility of rational discussion between
20
cultures, when cross-cultural values come into conflict and rhetoric or persuasion
fails, groups may resort to either apathy and isolationism, when the other
culture’s values do not threaten theirs, or violence, when another culture’s values
or actions impinge on or threaten them. The latter happens on an international
level, in the case of war, and on a national level, in the case of gang warfare and
racial, gender, and ethnic violence” (Boss, p. 140.) It is a sad irony that a theory
that was set in promotion to reach tolerance and respect can lead to its own
opposite.
Summary
Cultural relativism recognizes that culture influences our ethics and how we see
the world. It also points to the values of respecting legitimate differences and
respecting other people with different ways of going about things. It only
becomes a problem when it takes its version of truth and says that it is the only
version of truth. Relativism is one piece of the ethical puzzle; it is not the whole
puzzle. “Humans are profoundly social animals. Like language, morality does not
exist independently of culture. Just as all human languages share a common
grammatical structure, so too, most moral philosophers believe, does morality
share a common structure or foundation in all cultures. As with language, culture
shapes how we express this common morality. Some cultures do a better job
than others. Because of the role of culture in giving morality practical expression,
it is important that we understand the norms of our culture and respect them to
the extent that they do not conflict with the underlying moral foundation. If we are
to grow morally and make more satisfactory moral decisions in our lives, it is
important that we be willing to critically analyze our cultural norms in light of this
universal, transcultural moral foundation” (Boss, p. 142.) You might be wondering
how we can find these universal values. That is the task of the rest of this course.
We will begin the next lecture by learning how we can move beyond relativism by
first studying the relationship of morality and religion. We will then explore the
nature of moral development and how people mature ethically. Until then, be
good!
Bibliography:
Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York,
New York: McGraw Hill, 2008]
Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy
Made Lighter, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006]
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, [New York, New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1945]
21
Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That
Have Shaped Our World View, [New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1991]
Bruce Waller, You Decide! Current Debates in Contemporary Moral Problems,
[New York, New York: Pearson, 2006]
22