Culture and Morality. In Other

¶ … culture and morality. In other words it deals with the question: Is morality relative to culture? Proponents of so called "cultural relativism," sometimes also called "moral relativism" or "ethical relativism" argue that different cultures obtain varying moral codes. "If there is no transcendent moral or ethical standard, then often culture arguably seems to become the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong" (see Anderson: 1). Culture and cultural dimensions are considered the collective horizon representing a specific social reality. American anthropologist and cultural relativist Ruth Benedict in Patterns of Culture (1934) said: "Morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits" (as cited by Kehl: 2). The paper will show that the doctrine of "cultural relativism" - though it has some strong arguments - is a concept which eventually is not convincing because of its many shortcomings. It will show that the theory cannot be lived out consistently. The strongest discrepancy between the concept and reality is that there are universal moral standards that can exist even if some practices and beliefs vary from one culture to another.

Culture comes from the Latin word 'cultura' meaning a set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an entity, such as an organization or a group. Some authors define culture as follows: "Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as conditioning elements of future action" (as cited by Prawda: 1). I would like to use the term "culture" in a very broad sense to represent the totality of the social environment into which a human being is born and in which he/she lives.

Cultural relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. Cultural relativism is the view that all ethical truth is relative to a specific culture. Whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns is wrong (Relativism: 2). The key to cultural relativism is that right and wrong can only be judged relative to a specified society (Anderson: 1). There is no ultimate standard of right and wrong by which to judge culture. This view has some valid arguments but also many weaknesses.

As American anthropologist and cultural relativist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture (1934), diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree: "We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others; it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods" (pp.45-46) (as cited by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer: 1f.).

"Other anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead to the question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste" (as cited by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer: 2). Differences in moral practices across cultures raise an important issue in ethics -- the concept of "cultural relativism" sometimes also called "ethical relativism" or "moral relativism."

"The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards - standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies" (as cited by Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer: 2).

"A very famous proponent of cultural relativism was John Dewey, often considered the father of American education. He taught that moral standards were like language and therefore the result of custom. Language evolved over time and eventually became organized by a set of principles known as gramma . But language also changes over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of its culture. Likewise, Dewey said, ethics were also the product of an evolutionary process. There are no fixed ethical norms. These are merely the result of particular cultures attempting to organize a set of moral principles" (as cited by Anderson: 1). But these principles can also change over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of the culture (Anderson: 1). "This would also mean that different forms of morality evolved in different communities. Thus, there are no universal ethical principles. What may be right in one culture would be wrong in another culture, and vice versa" (Anderson ibid).

Although it is hard for us in the modern world to imagine, a primitive culture might value genocide, treachery, deception, even torture. While we may not like these traits, a true follower of cultural relativism could not say these are wrong since they are merely the product of cultural adaptation (Anderson ibid).

According to Charles Edwin Harris Jr., author of Applying Moral Theories, "Relativists do not deny moral truth exists, but they believe that moral truth is relative to a culture, class, individual or set of principles." In other words, Harris is saying that ethical relativists believe that some form of moral truths do exist, but they are determined by the individual or a group of people (as cited by Johnson: 1).

An example that cultural relativism might be a valid theory would be the Yanomamo Indians, a culture from the South American Amazon basin, where aggression is advocated. "Nearly half of the male population has killed someone within a lifetime, and husbands brutally "punish" their wives for the smallest "infractions," using such methods as jabbing them with sharp sticks or burning them with glowing coals. In short, hurting other human beings is rewarded and considered normal in this culture. Because this is all they have known and all they have been taught" (Knickerbocker: 2), this behavior is understandable but it certainly cannot be called morally right (see Knickerbocker: 2).

Another example would be "to salute someone with the sign of victory in the United States is a compliment. In Europe, however, this symbol means the same as the middle finger. if, while in Europe, knowing good and well what it meant, you gave someone the flying "v," you would be violating a moral code. Even if the individual deserved it, it is still defaming to the other person. Anytime that you know what you are doing when doing something harmful, selfish, or vindictive but do it anyway, the action is wrong, regardless of the circumstances" (Knickerbocker: 2f.).

or take the case of a two-year-old boy who accidentally gets hold of a loaded gun and fatally shoots his sister in the head. This boy has not been immoral. However, his innocence -- as Knickerbocker (3) points out "is quite a separate matter from the aspect of murder, which is clearly wrong. Just because we excuse him does not mean that murder is a subjective concept and that we will in turn excuse someone old enough to know better. In the same way, just because a savage group of natives do terrible things to each other and their actions are understandable -- that is quite a separate matter altogether from the aspect of morality; it is their immorality that is relative to their culture."

Cultural philosophies change over time as social societies evolve and grow. The social behavior that establishes what is moral in a society is unique to its moral codes. Some anthropologists point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide, genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer: 1).

If there is no transcendent ethical or moral standard, then cultural relativists argue that culture becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system is known as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the view that all ethical truth is relative to a specific culture. Whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns is wrong (Relativism: 2).

The key to the doctrine of "cultural relativism" is that right and wrong can only be judged relative to a specified society. There is no ultimate standard of right and wrong by which to judge culture. Proponents of cultural relativism believe this cultural diversity proves that culture alone is responsible for our morality. There is no soul or spirit or mind or conscience. Moral relativists say that what we perceive as moral convictions or conscience are the byproducts of culture (Anderson: 2).

Some of the main arguments for ethical relativism are the following: Actions or morals that are right for one person are not always right for another person. This argument is a form of subjectivism. A famous proponent of this view was John Dewey, often considered the father of American education. He taught that moral standards were like language and therefore the result of custom. Language evolved over time and eventually became organized by a set of principles known as grammar. But language also changes over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of its culture. Likewise, Dewey argued, ethics were also the product of an evolutionary process. There are no fixed ethical norms (as cited by Anderson: 1). These are merely the result of particular cultures attempting to organize a set of moral principles. But these principles can also change over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of the culture. This would also mean that different forms of morality evolved in different communities. Thus, there would be no universal ethical principles. What may be right in one culture would be wrong in another culture, and vice versa (as cited by Anderson: 1). Together with Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer that for example "the practice of slavery in pre-Civil War U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa was wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of Jews in Nazi society was morally reprehensible regardless of the beliefs of Nazi society" (2). It is certainly true that a primitive culture might value genocide, treachery, deception, even torture. While we may not like these traits in modern enlightened societies, a true follower of cultural relativism could not say these are wrong since they are merely the product of cultural adaptation (Anderson: 1). Another author gives this example:"She is gay, and I am straight so morals are relative." In this example there is a difference in behavior and beliefs of two persons. But having a different view of what is right or wrong to an individual does not negate that there are objective moral standards of what is right or wrong. Disagreement over moral principles does not deliver a strong enough foundation for ethical/moral relativism (Johnson: 1).

A prominent figure who expanded on Dewey's ideas was William Graham Sumner of Yale University. He believed that what our conscience tells us depends solely upon our social group. The moral values we hold are not part of our moral nature. They are part of our training and upbringing (Anderson: 2). Sumner argued in his book, Folkways: "World philosophy, life policy, right, rights, and morality are all products of the folkways" (as cited by Anderson: 2).

In other words, what we perceive as conscience is merely the product of culture upon our minds through childhood training and cultural influence. There are no universal ethical principles, merely different cultural conditioning (Anderson: 2).

Sumner studied all sorts of societies (primitive and advanced), and was able to document numerous examples of cultural relativism. Although many cultures promoted the idea, for example, that a man could have many wives, Sumner discovered that in Tibet a woman was encouraged to have many husbands. He also described how some Eskimo tribes allowed deformed babies to die by being exposed to the elements. In the Fiji Islands, aged parents were killed (Anderson: 2). Sumner believed that this diversity of moral values clearly demonstrated that culture is the sole determinant of our ethical standards. In essence, culture determines what is right and wrong. And different cultures come to different ethical conclusions (Anderson: 2).

The strength of cultural relativism is that it allows us to withhold moral judgments about the social practices of another culture. In fact, proponents of cultural relativism would say that cultural diversity proves that culture alone is responsible for our morality. There is no soul or spirit or mind or conscience. Cultural relativists believe that there are no universal moral principles in societies. What we perceive as convictions or conscience are the byproducts of culture (Anderson: 2).

In my opinion, cultural perspective can certainly help us understand why certain actions are considered right or wrong by a particular culture. For example, an ancient society might have considered dyeing one's hair green to be a punishable offense. Most modern societies would find that strange, if not oppressive. Yet, good cultural perspective might tell us more. If we were to find out that green hair was a sign of a prostitute, we would understand that it wasn't the hair color itself, but the prostitution that was truly considered "wrong" (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local: 1). Our awareness that people in different cultural systems can have different perspectives of the world emphasizes the importance of looking beyond our own culture's frontiers and studying other cultural groups in order to identify universal procedures of moral behavior (see Bundy: 1). But the strengths of understanding socio-cultures differences, in my opinion, is also a major weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging moral practices of societies (see Anderson: 2). There is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this would mean that no moral or ethical system can be considered the "best," or "worst," and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered "right" or "wrong" (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local: 1). In my opinion, Eckensberger is very right when he argues that" morality is one of the control systems of culture and it is a unique one" (25).

The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes apparent when looking at it from a logical view. The basic premise of the concept is that "truth is relative" (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local: 1). Rather than simply saying, "we need to understand the morals of other cultures," it says, "we cannot judge the morals of other cultures," regardless of the reasons for their actions. There is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. Holding to strict cultural relativism, it is not possible to say that human sacrifice is "wrong," or that respect for the elderly is "right." After all, those are products of the culture. This takes any talk of morality right over the cliff, and into meaningless gibberish (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local: 1). Saying that some morals are "better," even if they are not "the best," still implies that some ultimate standard that's being used to make the judgment (Cultural Relativism: All Truth is Local: 2).

Coetzee, Louw and Jooste take a more moderate view towards the rightness of the theory of ethical relativism by pointing out that "Cross-cultural studies & #8230;.. indicate that differences in cultural norms are associated with different expectations for behavior, attitudes, and emotional expression. These culturally variant expectations will emphasize different aspects of morality. As a result, perceptions of morality, as well as the development of morality, tend to differ between cultures and ethnic groups. Therefore it is not inconceivable that the perceptions of morality between Zulu and Tswana [school] learners for instance may vary" (4).

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles (Velasquez et al.: 2). It is certainly true that the morals of one person may vary slightly from the next. Bu tall enlightened modern societies have the same basic set of universal morals. I also do not think that the moral values of one individual are completely different from the rest of human mankind (see Argument by Morality: Axiological Argument: 1).

In my opinion, Rosaldo makes a very good point against cultural relativism when he stresses that "…the idea of separate but equal cultures no longer seems accurate. Cultures are not separate; they are not confined to their own individual museum cases. They exist side by side in the same space" (3).

In this context, one can probably mention the example of polygamy (having many wives). In some cultures, polygamy is appropriate. In other cultures, a man is only allowed to have one wife at a time. B ut all cultures share the moral view that a man can't just take any woman he wants whenever he pleases (Argument by Morality: Axiological Argument. As Clive Staples Lewis (3f.) puts it, "Think of a country where people were admired form running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five" (as cited in Argument by Morality: Axiological Argument: 1f.).

In the following I would like to show at the examples of the Dutch, Belgian, French and American culture and my own culture as a Turkish national, that - though the cultural perspective varies in each country -- all four countries show some kind of inherent universal moral code.

According to Morrison, Conaway and Borden "the Dutch are strongly individualistic, but cultural history must be considered in the decision-making process. Individual privacy is considered a necessity in all walks of life. Decision-making is slow and involved, since all peripheral concerns must be taken care of in the process. Once the decision is made it is made unchangeable. Planning is a way of life in the Netherlands. The Dutch are [preoccupied] with planning, regulating, and organizing. Even though universal values are adhered to, it is important to develop the friendship of the participants" (238).

As far as the cultural orientation in Belgium is concerned, Morrison, Conaway and Borden suggest that "In general, the Belgians are open-minded to outside information and will anyone in a discussion of facts, principles, or theories. Information is generally gathered from a conceptual perspective. They are proud of their intellectual heritage. The German speakers tend to follow abstract codes of behavior, while the Dutch and French speakers are more apt to emphasize interpersonal relationships. In all three groups friendships are particular and deep (23). The individual is responsible for his or her decisions. Although ethnocentric values are adhered to, the relationship between the participants is a major variable in the decision-making process. Decision making is slow and involved, as all peripheral problems must be taken care of the process. Belgians hold to the principles of common sense and compromise" (23).

Morrison, Conaway and Borden describe the American cultural orientation as follows: "In the United States the culture is very ethnocentric and so it is closed to most outside information. It is very analytical and concepts are abstracted quickly. Innovation often takes precedence over tradition. The universal rule is preferred.…(406). Although the United States is probably the most individualistic of all cultures, each person becomes a replaceable cog in the wheel of any organization. There is a high self, as opposed to other, orientation emphasizing individual initiative and achievement. People from the United States do not find it difficult to say "no." The individual has a life of his or her own that is generally private and not to be discussed in business negotiations. Friendships are few and specific to needs" (407).

I myself am a Turkish national. Morrison, Conaway and Borden identify the Turkish cultural orientation as follows: "Turkey is a secularized Islamic nation & #8230; (390). On any question, the answer comes from a combination of immediate feelings and faith in the [religion] of Islam. & #8230;Turkey's territory lies both in Europe and Asia, and its value systems have always been an amalgam of East and West. The following three sections identify the value systems of the predominant culture -- their methods of dividing right from wrong, good from evil, and so forth (391). The male leader is the decision maker, but he always considers the family group upon which the decision is binding. Private life is overwhelmed by family, friends and organizations, and these determine one's opinions. A relationship between participants must be established before any formal negotiations can take place. Identity is based on the social system, and education is the primary vehicle for moving up the social ladder. Stability and identity in life come from one's role in the social structure, plus the presence of a strong family orientation. There is a deeply engrained work ethic & #8230; Pride in one's country society, and family bolsters one's self-image. There is a definite social hierarchy, with some bias against classes, ethnic groups (especially the Kurds), and religions" (391).

The picture of Dutch, Belgian, American and Turkish culture shows that it is pretty much diverse. Dutch and Belgian nationals share some cultural values. I would imagine that the reason for this is first that both countries are European countries and second that they are neighbors to each other. The American culture differs from the Dutch, Belgian and Turkish culture in the way that it very much emphasizes individualism. I believe this is engrained in the history of the country itself. The British colonists coming to America in the 1700s simply had to be very individualistic if they wanted to found a new nation and to survive apart from the British Empire. The Turkish culture stands out from the Dutch, Belgian and American culture because it is a secularized Islamic nation that combines European and Asian culture.

Despite all these cultural ramifications in all four countries, there are universal standards existing even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures (see Velasquez et al.: 2). As Pekarsky in regard to the American cultures rightly points out: " & #8230; American culture is more plural than [his] account & #8230;. And this paragraph is intended to call the reader's attention to this point. While this is an important point to consider, I want to suggest that within the diversity of cultural influences a human being encounters in American society, there may nonetheless be certain voices representing particular values that speak very loud across these differences"

(9 Fn. 2).

That there are universal moral values is essentially the standpoint of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men."

The rights come from a Creator. But Jefferson, being a Deist, did not share the belief in any form of divine revelation. The question to ask then seems to be the following: Without revelation, how can anyone know what the particulars of universal morality are? Jefferson said they are "self-evident." James Madison, another founding father of the U.S. Constitution, came up with a similar rationale for certain inalienable rights. In 1788 James Madison asserted that the U.S. Constitution was derived strictly from "natural law," i.e., observation of the nature of man (see Taylor: 5). As Thomas Jefferson put it in his First Inaugural Address, the law should "restrain men from injuring one another" but "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits" (as cited by Taylor: 5). The founding fathers learned about "natural law" in their historical and political studies. It was a familiar thread that ran through the Greek and Roman philosophers, such as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Seneca, and especially Cicero; the Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law; and many of the European and English political philosophers, such as Sir Edward Coke, John Locke, Baron Charles de Montesquieu, and Sir William Blackstone ( Taylor: 2). Throughout human history, enlightened societies have sought to accomplish this goal by developing their legal codes in accordance with "natural law" (Taylor: 1).