After reading Ruth Benedict and William Graham Sumner's arguments as well as Immanuel Kant's, I believe ethical principles are relative and particular, meaning that they are specific to a context, community, or era. That said, I have a tendency to lean towards the ideas of Benedict. Morality, as we see it today, as well as how we have seen it for hundreds of years, is culturally relative. Not only do relativists stand strongly behind the thought that moral relativism encourages people to recognize the values and traditions of others, but it is more than that. The encouragement to accept a difference is just one reason relativism makes for a better worldview. Relativists see the differences within cultures and how they can correlate to separate values. This does not mean that relativism makes any person more humble, respectful, etc. because those are all social constructs anyways and we have no way to find truth in what any of those really mean, but over all the encouragement to accept differences allows for a more vast human understanding of the morals others’ hold. It is all simply relative. In regards to Benedict, I think to me the most instructive conclusion drawn by her piece was, “Most individuals are plastic to the molding force of the society into which they are born.” after reading the examples she provided and reading further into her research online, it is clear that depending on situation, morals of individuals are different. All views are relative to the societal mold of which a person is placed.

Benedict was well known for her pros regarding morality. As an anthropologist, Benedict spent her life trying to understand the nature of human beings and their actions. As Benedict stood behind the ideals of relativism, she is well known for saying:

"We do not any longer make the mistake of deriving the morality of our locality and decade directly from the inevitable constitution of human nature. We do not elevate it to the dignity of a first principle. We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, "It is morally good," rather than "It is habitual," and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous."

This argument essentially provides backup regarding her relativist view and states that what is morally good is what is habitual. In other words, we classify human morals with a basis from our cultural norms. Another way of looking at this statement by Benedict is that cultural norms are simply molding opinions of right and wrong. If this is true, then there is no justification behind absolute rights and absolute wrongs. These absolutes simply do not exist. Without our culture we have today, what people think to be absolutes couldn’t exist.

To provide a specific example, I will begin by saying I have taken a separate ethics class at UNH and the instructor touched upon the fact that we were a predominantly white, mid to upper class, relatively privileged, and accepting community. With that being true, the disparity in discussions was not as large as it potentially could be given the sample size. We all live in a similar community and have similar definitions of culture; therefore we are relatively molded to have certain expectations of morals and beliefs. We believed many of the same things and when it came to our morals, there were not many outliers. This is true partially because the lives we have created for ourselves led us all to the same school, studying the same thing, and paying similar bills to do so. When there was an outlier, many in the class were able to understand that different cultures can lead to different beliefs and therefore did not discriminate against the separate views. Though we may not have agreed, we saw that there was a factor that contributed to this opinion and that factor could typically be related to a difference in culture or a difference in life experiences.

Another specific example is as follows, have you ever tossed up a peace sign with your palm facing towards yourself? In England that is nearly equivalent to the middle finger gesture we utilize in the United States. In the United States, if you were leaving for the night and you made that gesture to your mom as you were walking out the door, it is no big deal. In England, however, your mom would be greatly insulted and concerned as to why there is such disrespect towards your own mother. This is an example of normality of behavior entirely relative to where the person lives, their culture, if you will. Normality of behavior is typically regulated through culture and therefore has effect on many of the basis of morals. Something being right versus wrong often directly correlates to the normality of the behavior in the perpetrators cultural environment.

Universalists, such as Kant, would argue that there are universal truths. They would say things such as “_____ is wrong no matter what”. Stating a universal truth was built into your human philosophy, something intrinsic that one does not have to be taught. Relativists, on the other hand, flip that to argue that there is no such thing as absolutes, no such thing as ‘no matter what’s. Relativists counter Universalists by arguing that they do not see how there can be absolute and universal truths. Relativists argue that universal truths are unobtainable because our morals are constructs of what we have been taught and what we have learned ourselves through the years. Everything that we think we ‘know,’ we have no ability of holding as absolute truth. The information that we ‘know’ is projections of the world that humanity in particular cultures have created. A relativist would argue that time, colors, math, opinions, language, rights and wrongs, they are all just projections. Even that statement cannot be a universal truth to a relativist because down the road there could be evidence to counteract it. Relativists are just interpreting the world as their culture provides it to them. Relativists use cultural evidence to determine the ethically sound or ethically unsound nature of an action.

Years ago many people thought the world was flat. To these people, that was science and that was truth, many died believing the world was flat. Today, we look back on these beliefs and we laugh, but to them that was truth. We cannot prove anything; even truth is just a human construct. People are going to look back and be in disbelief of some of the things we considered "truth" as well. With this being said, how can anyone truly find an absolute truth that cannot be trumped? Kant believes so greatly in moral law due to the fact that it represents the power reason holds and gives us the opportunity to access timeless and universal truths about the meaning of life. How can we say that Moral Law is not just another projection relative to our environment? We cannot. Relativists would say that all of the previous opinions and thoughts of morality were entirely based off the culture in which they developed.

Sometimes when actions are morally wrong people will justify the actions by claiming someone as “only human”. With this being a common theme in our culture today, how can that then go to show that as humans we are expected to have some sort of prior knowledge as to what is right and wrong? Some of what we consider universal truths have been developed through the survival of the fittest, an ongoing race to the top that has developed with our culture and civilization over the years. So even the most basic of human characteristics are relative to what has been considered to be the most “fit” in a culture. If the culture were different, as would be the most fit, therefore it is all relative.

Both my beliefs and me are a product of my culture, the way I was raised, the time period I live in, and where I am from. From a personal standpoint I am obliged to ask myself, if I was not raised in such an accepting society would I feel comfortable being myself? If I were born into a family 35 years ago in the south, would I be openly homosexual and a mentor to people trying to reach the same level of openness? I do not believe so. I believe that my culture conditioned me to realize that having an interest in people of the same sex isn’t completely abnormal and with the realization I was able to find comfort in myself. With all of that being said and being true, we are all obliged to understand that the truth is relative, not universal.

Overall, Benedict's claims in A Defense of Moral Relativism were all completely valid and went on to prove that relativism is the best explanation regarding our morals and their roots. While Universalists attempt a strong counterargument, when there are no universal truths there are no Universalists and if all truths are a projection of human beliefs then there are no universal truths.

Sources

Benedict, Ruth. "A Defense of Moral Relativism." Anthropology and the Abnormal, Journal of General Psychology (1934): n. pag. California Lutheran University. California Lutheran University. Web. 4 Jan. 2017.

Gracyk, Theodore. "Relativism Overview." Relativism Overview. MN State, 2008. Web. 04 Jan. 2017.