This paper examines moral relativism as an ethical theory, focusing on the central argument that no single universal standard of ethical behavior can legitimately be imposed on all cultures. Using the historical practices of Eskimo communities — including infanticide and the abandonment of the elderly — as a primary case study, the paper illustrates how actions that appear morally reprehensible in one cultural context may be understood as rational and ethically justified within another. The paper argues that moral relativists advocate for evaluating all human actions within their specific cultural and social contexts rather than applying an external ethical yardstick.
The paper demonstrates contextual ethical analysis — the practice of suspending one's own moral framework before evaluating a foreign cultural practice. By first presenting the practice as an outsider would perceive it, then systematically reframing it through the lens of the culture that produced it, the author shows how the same action can carry entirely different moral weight depending on the evaluative framework applied.
The paper opens by defining moral relativism and its core claim, then introduces the Eskimo case study to ground the theory in a real historical example. It explains the social and environmental logic behind the practices, addresses the common objection that such practices reflect disregard for human life, and closes by broadening the argument to a general principle about cultural judgment. The structure moves cleanly from theory → example → analysis → conclusion.
Proponents of moral relativism as an ethical theory believe that it is impossible to impose one universal standard of ethical behavior on all cultures. Instead, moral relativists argue that different cultures can have varying standards of what constitutes ethical behavior. For example, prior to being "discovered" by explorers in the early 20th century, many indigenous tribes — later referred to as "Eskimo" — lived in isolation in Alaska, northern Canada, parts of Greenland, and northeastern Siberia.
Explorers brought back accounts of the practice of infanticide, where mothers routinely killed female babies without repercussion. Older people were also often left in the snow to die.
Many people condemned these practices, branding the Eskimo as people with no regard for human life. However, a moral relativist would analyze these practices within the cultural and social context of Eskimo life. Life is far more difficult in the frozen north, so infants were sometimes killed at birth during periods of scarcity. Similarly, when a member of society became too feeble to contribute, leaving them in the snow was deemed the proper course of action. Both practices were considered appropriate because they increased the survival chances of the tribe as a whole. Thus, while another society might recoil at the idea of infanticide or abandoning the elderly, Eskimo societies viewed the survival of the tribe as the paramount concern.
Moral relativism challenges the assumption that any single culture holds a privileged ethical perspective. By insisting that ethical standards are always embedded in specific cultural and social conditions, relativists argue that no external framework can fairly or accurately evaluate the practices of another society. An action such as infanticide, no matter how abhorrent it may seem, may then be an ethical action in a society that values collective survival over the rights of one individual.
You’re 74% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.