ETHICAL RELATIVISM - Some societies believe that it is appropriate to abandon their

elderly when they become too feeble to contribute to the family. Some societies hold bribery
to be morally acceptable. We commonly hear people say “what is right for one person is not
necessarily right for another, or ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’. The question is
whether there is an objective moral standard, i.e the standard of right and wrong. In other
words, can morality be grounded on some objective basis, or is morality merely a function of
cultural values that differ from one society to the other?
(Social Ethical / Cultural / Moral Relativism) Relativism often includes:
• Moral relativism (ethics depend on a social construct),
• Situational relativism (right or wrong is based on the particular situation)
•Cognitive relativism (truth itself has no objective standard)
Ethical Relativism
• A theory that holds that there are no universally accepted ethical standards. It believes that
there are no objective standard of right and wrong, even in principle. The opposite of Ethical
Relativism is called Ethical Objectivism (universalism) because an objectivist believes that
there is an objective standard of right and wrong.
Ethical Relativism and Subjectivism
• Subjectivism (also called Individual Ethical Relativism or Subjective Ethical Relativism) is
similar to Social Ethical Relativism. Both Ethical Relativism and Subjectivism do not believe
in the existence of an objective moral standard. Unlike Social Ethical Relativism, however,
Subjectivism believes that the basis for moral judgment varies from one individual to another.
Morality depends not on society, but rather on the individual. Morality is like taste or
aesthetic judgment. Morality is in the eye of the beholder
Ethical Relativism /Cultural Relativism
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong within that society.
3. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
Cultural Relativism - states that we must understand individuals in the context of their own
culture. Culture meaning: Values, norms, customs, belief system, diet, habits and contents
(veg-nonveg, timing), sports, music, rituals, success, failure, attitude, poverty, prosperity etc.
must be understood in their own cultural context. Good and bad are relative to culture. What
is "good" is what is "socially approved" in a given culture. Cultural relativists see morality as
a product of culture. In other words, we can't judge what others do based on the standards of
our culture, but on the standards found in their culture. Cultural relativity helps us to
understand other cultures and their practices without thinking that they're inferior or
backwards.
Reasons (Arguments) for Ethical Relativism
There are certain principles and arguments that support cultural/Ethical relativism:
I. Diversity of Moral Views Argument
II.Moral Uncertainty Argument
III.Situational Differences Argument
IV.Toleration of Differences Argument

I. Diversity of Moral Views

Diversity of moral views refers to the existence of moral diversity among cultures. For
example, cases on bribery, or leaving the elderly explain such moral diversity?
Anthropological theory that states that moral rules differ from society to society. However,
people can disagree about what constitutes the right thing to do and yet believe that there is a
right thing to do.
II. Moral Uncertainty views:
Moral uncertainty refers to the great difficulty we often have in knowing what is the morally
right thing to believe or do. We mistrust our own judgement. Sometimes we don’t know what
is the most important thing to do when we face conflicts between different moral values. For
example, when we encounter a specific situation (such as: is it better to help a friend or to be
honest? Besides, usually we are unable to understand and fully evaluate what are the
consequences of different courses of action However, the fact that we are uncertain about the
answer to some question does not prove that it lacks an answer.
III. Situational Differences Views:
Situational differences refer to the problem of how the same thing can either be right or
wrong under different circumstances, or for different individuals. For example, (In one place
there is a problem of overpopulation, in another the problem is drought, in other places the
standard of living is high) may lead to different moral values Or that it is wrong for me to
steal food but it is okay for someone to do so when it is the only way to survive. Individual
acts are right or wrong depending on the nature of the society in which the occur. Morality
does not exist in a vacuum. However, some moral principles are context-free.

IV. Toleration of Differences Argument

Ethical Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or Tolerance is consistent with
ethical relativism. Desire to remain tolerant and open. People from different cultures have
different moral beliefs, one ought to tolerate, i.e., not be critical of, these beliefs. One ought
not to think that one view is better or more correct than another, hence one should adopt
ethical relativism, which entails that all moral beliefs are equally correct. However, it is
possible to tolerate other cultures while ignoring and not valuing them.
Why Ethical Relativism?
In general, relativism implies a more tolerant position than objectivism. By saying that
morality is relative (to individual or society) we can be more tolerant of others whose moral
position differ from ours. Dobson (1990) argue that cultures have their own unique set of
rules and acceptable behaviours and there is no universal procedure to suggest that one way
may be better than another.
•Ethical relativists argue that one should follow the ethical norms of the country where they
are doing business. For example, if an organisation was required to pay a bribe to gain
business, ethical relativists would rely on local cultures to determine if this was right or
wrong (Bowie, 1996)
• Bowie (1996) writes that all countries are different in various ways such as physical setting,
economic development and literacy rates and argues that even if truly universal moral
principles existed, they would be subjected to differing cultural context.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF ER
It may conflict with individual moral standards, home country values and laws.
Organisations from industrialised countries might use relativism to justify unacceptable
business practices in less-industrialised countries. For example, Cullia (2011) describes how
bribery is an acceptable practice in the Dominican Republic but also obstructs economic and
business growth. The area of ethical dilemma perhaps most frequently encountered by many
companies is dealing with potential bribery and corruption. Corruption is intrinsically
immoral.
Corruption can include:
›Attempts to secure government or other contracts by bribery;
›Payments because of blackmail and protection;
›Facilitating government services that companies are entitled to receive but whose provision
is delayed by excessive bureaucracy;
“Our own way of living seems so natural and right that for many of us it is hard to conceive
of others living so differently”

Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes – Example

Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he encountered in his
travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians (a tribe of Indians) customarily ate the
bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that— the Greeks practiced
cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
Darius thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation
of such differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some
Greeks who happened to be present at his court and asked them what they would take to eat
the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and
replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called
in some Callatians, and while the Greeks listened asked them what they would take to burn
their dead fathers' bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not even to mention
such a dreadful thing. This story, recounted, illustrates a recurring theme in the literature of
social science:
• Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may
be utterly abhorrent to the members of another group, and vice versa.
•Conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If we assume that our ideas of
right and wrong will be shared by all peoples as all times, we are merely naive.
J Rachel’s – Challenge of Cultural Relativism.
Rachel is a critic of Cultural Relativism (CR). He points out that if CR were true, Americans,
living by our different moral codes, could not rationally criticize widely accepted cultural
practices such as slavery, anti-Semitism, genital mutilation, racism, denying women the right
to vote, or discrimination against LGBT people.
Inconsistent claims of CR/ER – J – Rachel
1. The Cultural Differences Argument – Invalid Argum.
Different cultures have different moral codes, therefore, there is no objective ‘truth’ in
morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.
(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was
right to eat the dead. (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture This is NOT a
sound argument. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and the
conclusion must follow logically from them. The conclusion does not follow from the
premise. The premise concerns what people believe in some societies, in other societies
people believe something else.
2. To reinforce his position Rachel makes a distinction between the two different cultures we
saw earlier: The Callatians and The Greeks. Their different views and the disposing of their
dead. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right.
Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the
matter? No, it does not follow; for it could be that the practice was objectively right (or
wrong) and that one or the other of them was simply mistaken.
In some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. In others, people believe it is spherical.
Does it follow, from the mere fact that people disagree, that there is no “objective truth” in
geography? Of course not; we would never draw such a conclusion, because we realize that
the members of some societies might simply be wrong. There is no reason to think that if
there is moral truth everyone must know it. There is no reason to think that if the world is
round everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is moral truth
everyone must know it.
The fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument is that it attempts to derive a
substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree about it.
Rachel points out that the reasons often given in support of CR are often shallow or confused
or commit a logical fallacy. For example, it’s true that two cultures can vehemently disagree
about the rightness and wrongness of, say, genital mutilation, and that typically nothing
critics can possibly say will persuade defenders of the practice that it is wrong. However, as a
general rule, entrenched disagreements over matters of belief do not logically imply there is
no fact of the matter and no objective right or wrong on the issue.

3. What if the norms of a society favor intolerance?

Indeed, two of the propositions appear to be inconsistent with each other. The second says
that right and wrong are determined by the norms of a society; the fifth says that one should
always be tolerant of other cultures. But what if the norms of one’s society favor intolerance?
Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures. Some prohibition against murder is also a
necessary feature of any society if it is to persist.

4. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own
( As stressed by CR).We should never condemn other societies merely because they are
"different. This attitude seems enlightened, so long as we concentrate on examples like the
funerary practices of the Greeks and Callatians. Now, suppose a society waged war on its
neighbors for the purpose of taking slaves. Or suppose a society was violently anti-Semitic
and its leaders set out to destroy the Jews. Cultural Relativism would preclude us from saying
that either of these practices was wrong. We would not even be able to say that a society
tolerant of Jews is better than the anti-Semitic society, for that would imply some sort of
transcultural standard of comparison. We could no longer say that the customs of other
societies are morally inferior to our own. The failure to condemn these practices does not
seem enlightened; on the contrary, slavery and anti-Semitism seem wrong wherever they
occur. If we took Cultural Relativism seriously, we would have to regard these social
practices as also immune from criticism. We could no longer honestly say that the customs of
other societies are morally inferior to our own. - We could no longer justifiably criticize the
code of our own society. Consider Eskimo infanticide: We cannot conclude that, because our
customs differ, our values differ. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values

5. We cannot decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of
our society. Cultural Relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is right and what
is wrong: All one need do is ask whether the action is in line with the code of one's society.
Suppose in 1975, a resident of South Africa was wondering whether his country's policy of
apartheid—a rigidly racist system—was morally correct. All he has to do is ask whether this
policy conformed to his society's moral code. If it did, there would have been nothing to
worry about, at least from a moral point of view. we cannot decide whether actions are right
or wrong. This implication of Cultural Relativism is disturbing because few of us think that
our society's code is perfect; we can think of ways it might be improved. Moreover, we can
think of ways in which we might learn from other cultures. Yet Cultural Relativism would
not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from
criticizing our own and it bars us from seeing ways in which other cultures might be better.
After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our own culture just
as much as for other cultures.
6. If Cultural Relativism is correct, can we legitimately view this as progress?
Throughout most of Western history, the place of women in society was narrowly defined.
Women could not own property; they could not vote or hold political office; and they were
under the almost absolute control of their husbands or fathers. Recently, much of this has
changed, and most people think of it as progress. Progress means replacing the old ways with
new and improved ways. But by what standard do we judge the new ways as better? If the old
ways conformed to the standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would not judge
them by our standards. Sexist 19th-century society was a different society from the one we
now inhabit. To say that we have made progress implies that present-day society is better—
just the so rt of transcultural judgment that Cultural Relativism forbids.
Objectivity in the World
• In Math: 5+7=12, no matter what you believe.
• In Science: The Earth is round, and it was round even when everyone believed it was flat.
• In Religion: • Either God exists or God does not exist. If God exists, then God exists
regardless of whether anyone believes it. If God does not exist, then God doesn't exist
regardless of how sincerely anyone believes that God does exist. (The fact the you believe it
doesn’t make it true.)
CLASS ACTIVITY:
1. Travel to an Exotic Land: You are the guest of a tribe that practices a ritual of killing a
child to kill each year in order to please the gods and assure health and prosperity for the
coming year. It is considered a great honor to be chosen to be killed or to do the killing. Since
you are an honored guest, you are offered the spear to kill the child.
Would it be morally wrong for you to participate?
2: SAM COLT the Relativist
As a relativist, he would attempt to determine the group consensus before deciding whether
to tell his prospective customer about the bolts’ defect rate. If he learns that general company
policy, as well as industry practice, is to discuss defect rates with those customers for whom
faulty bolts may cause serious problems, he may infer that there is a consensus on the matter.
He would probably then inform the bridge contractor that some of the bolts may fail, perhaps
leading to a bridge collapse in the event of an earthquake. Conversely, if Sam determines that
the normal practice in his company and the industry is to not inform customers about defect
rates, he would probably not raise the subject with the bridge contractor.
3: In what way is ethical relativism said to backfire?
4: What is cultural relativism, and what are its advantages and disadvantages?
5. According to James Rachels, what lessons can be learned from cultural relativism?