Relativism as an ethical theory
...idual and the environment that he is in. Benedict warns us of not making the mistake that the uncultivated person does, which is to accept the cultural legacy of our tradition as something that is set in stone. The point she is making here is what Dewey himself made. For example, if we were doing history from a purely objective viewpoint, the term “Indian” is Eurocentric. The reason being, Christopher Columbus decided to label these people with that name. In order to know what these people actually called themselves, we would have to ask them directly (Dr. Shea, 2003). In the previous outline, Benedict is basically arguing for relativity. She wants to argue that our civilization and our cultural values are in no way superior to those of other land or time; they are all on equal footing. According to her wherever you go, you have to conform to the environment. The relativists here are claiming that there are no absolutes and no trans-cultural values; everything is relevant (Dr. Shea, 2003). Benedict further argues for ethical relativity by suggesting we go back in time and examine the same behaviors that were at different times condemned, praised, or were morally neutral (Dr. Shea, 2003). She gives an example of the Greeks and Romans attitudes towards homosexuality. Homosexuality was not a cause for exile or condemning in ancient Rome. However, in today’s modern society, we are likely to condemn these practices (Shipka, p 284). Benedict provides real evidence in terms of which normality may be culturally defined. She uses two case studies, one of which she mentions the people in Melanesia who the western world would most likely pin labels upon their behaviors. According to the westerner, the Melanesians would be considered as displaying psychotic behaviors, but in this culture their behavior is considered the cornerstone of the social group. If we were to label the Melanesians, they would be considered paranoid people because they are always afraid of getting poisoned by one another (Shipka, p 285). The conclusion Benedict wants to draw here is that Melanesians are not really psychotic people; it’s just that normality and abnormality are culturally defined. According to Benedict, there are no absolute meanings attached to these categories. They are all relative to her. Toward the end of the reading Benedict tries to make an analogy. She starts off by saying, “no one civilization can possibly use its mores (moral) for the whole po...