Ruth Benedict ‘s criticism of ethical relativism calls for legal relativism, as the description suggests. This is our idea of social well-being and social health. We live in a society which accepts our times’ standardized morals, Benedict says. However, we do not have the power to judge the moral or ethics of a culture in this sphere. Ruth ethical relativism has demonstrated that actions that are not appropriate and healthy in some we find to be evil in our culture. And behaviors in some cultures that are considered bad can be good behavior. What is good or evil in the bulk of culture decides the value of behavior. Therefore, because different cultures have different moral standards , different ideas of goodness and evil, we can not say that there is one moral code which applies to everyone. Benedict argues, “Like a work of art, a culture chooses which theme from its repertoire of basic tendencies to emphasize and then produces a grand design, favoring those tendencies” (Benedict, pg. 1). Primitive societies or communities that are largely disconnected from the modern environment have various normative beliefs, depending on the issues determined by the majority as good or evil. What is right for a organization is what is implemented. It just does not mean that we have a choice “as we reside in the simplified normative area”. One evidence she offers to justify her point is that she speaks about the Kwakiutl community who is accustomed to killing another human when a loved one dies. It is not out of spite even if anyone suffers, be it death to an opponent or disease. That is not out of retribution. It’s done to wipe away a loved one ‘s death by another’s death. It is perceived to be completely unethical to us. According to Benedict ‘s philosophy, however, if he resided in the Kwakiutl community, the individual in our society who behaved in this way was not to breach moral codes. If Benedict’s defense of ethical relativism is correct, then you can’t defend her against the consequence of the majority favoring capitol punishment and being against abortion, making abortions wrong and capital punishment right. It states that in some cultures what is ‘healthy’ is determined by public culture, violence, murder and slavery, so that we should find ‘good.’ This is why I find ethical relativism to be risky. Benedict can not be protected from abortion that is perceived to be evil and death penalty to be fine. Due to its definition of ethical relativism, any social characteristic, that I find very dangerous, can be good or bad. Rape, slavery and killing will always be bad regardless of the culture. I also have a problem with the idea of majority voting on the moral and immoral. What if the land is a patriarchate, and there is no true voice in determining what is right and wrong for those affected by certain morals? I know that not all women undergo this procedure in the practice of female mutilation. Can they express their genuine convictions? Or are you afraid to be ostracized or repressed for the fact that your mouth is shut? But, because it is mostly influenced by ethical relativism, then it is right. I agree that ethical relativism may not be a systematic or rational solution when it comes to assessing morality, since injustice and the misuse of power can disproportionately influence what the masses consider as good or evil. I think of two relatives who believe very differently in their gender roles than I am when I think of my own lives and where ethical relativism applies. I think that for me, couples need to share household responsibilities and the notion of ‘the house owner’ is patriarchal and need not to occur. The other thing is my aunt and uncle. They are really kind people, who work hard and love each other very much. First, they ‘re very kind people. Both are Christian fundamentalists who also share in the principle that the guy is in control while a woman is submitting to her lord. We are Christian fundamentalist. It was because we have a common background and values that I found that I needed to stop criticizing them. I realized that I was not able to judge their culture or give a moral assessment, because I am not a member of this culture and they both seem genuinely happy about their own lives, because of ethical relativism. And I think it’s oppressive for women, however my aunt prefers because she insists that it’s true. I’ll never chose that route. All I can do is respect them and enjoy them.
luisamariahernandez. 2020. A Defense Of Ethical Relativism By Ruth Benedict. [online] Available at: <https://luisamariahernandez.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/a-defense-of-ethical-relativism-by-ruth-benedict/> [Accessed 10 July 2020].
Words 771
shivam's blog 
I agree with your post. Some things may seem acceptable in one society but viewed as unethical in others. Your example of family responsibilities was perfect as it demonstrates what people find acceptable and it was very clear that you see someone being “Man of the house” and not contributing towards housework is oppressive which I agree. I learned from a recent interview with an older lady that women would actually be labeled to just cook and clean as if it was their only function in life and how it was acceptable during those times as it was common. This to me seems unreasonable but it wasn’t back then which again restates how one person sees something acceptable while another may not due to the surrounding environment.
LikeLike