In the defense of Ethical Relativism

Ruth Benedict’s defense of ethical relativism makes many great points in the aim towards understanding an objective human morality across all peoples.  Benedict’s argument pushes the idea that human behavior is greatly effected by the society in which the particular person is raised in stating that, “most individuals are plastic to the moulding force of the society into which they are born”. (Benedict) Meaning that we are only as moral as our society deems fit. She gives many examples of this idea the most extreme of which I believe is that of the Kwakiutl cultures who saw the death of a loved one as an, “affront to be wiped out by the death of another person.”(Benedict) they believed that despite the cause of the death they now must go out and cause death upon another to make themselves feel better. That reaction is one that in our modern western culture would be seen as extremely unjust and as an abnormal response, however Benedict believes that because that behavior was seen as normal or habitual to the Kwakiutl then to the Kwakiutl it is a morally acceptable behavior.  From my understanding you can not defend Benedict’s argument against the consequences of ethical relativism.  If Benedict is in fact correct in her belief that all ethics are relative to the society upon which one dissects then it would be impossible to argue that if the society deemed capital punishment good and abortion bad that it is not relatively still a “good” society, for the society has chosen to believe that those ideals are morally necessary for their culture. 

This is where I believe a critic of ethical relativism can be offered.  Just because it is true that every different society holds different opinions and beliefs which guide their morality does not mean that those decisions automatically become morally good just because they are habitual to that particular community.  We must look to find objective standards of morality to impose unto the world.  At one point in history for many cultures the murder, rape, and theft of innocents was not only allowed but encouraged by those societies but that does not mean that those behaviors are in any way morally good.  Good and bad actions are not relative, they are objective.  To use her example of the Kwakiutl, it is objectively bad to cause death upon another just because death has been cased upon you, especially if it is of no fault by whom they chose to bring death upon.  The Kwakiutl culture in that regard is brutish and cruel due to the normality not relatively good just because their society deemed those acts as acceptable.  Another issue of ethical relativism is that, to what are these moral standards compared, how are they relative? If we are comparing societies then I’d argue it is very clear that some cultures are morally better than others. In my culture it is wrong, cruel and evil to marry a person against their will be in other modern cultures this practice is still seen as normal. I think it is a lazy and irresponsible conclusion to argue that because a culture finds something habitual that it is then seen as a moral good to that culture.  Yes it may be accepted, practiced and even in some cases honored by that society but I do not believe that you can call those actions good by its popularity alone.