Cultural

relativism:
A Challenge to
the Possibility
of Ethics
Consider the Eskimos. They are a remote and
inaccessible people. Numbering only about
25,000, they live in small, isolated settlements
scattered mostly along the northern fringes of
North America and Greenland. Until the
beginning of this century, the outside world
knew little about them. Then explorers began
to bring back strange tales. Eskimo customs
turned out to be very different from our own.
The men often had more than one wife, and
they would share their wives with guests,
lending them for the night as a sign of
hospitality.
Moreover, within a community, a dom-
inant male might demand -- and get
--regular sexual access to other men's
wives. The women, however, were free to
break these arrangements simply by
leaving their husbands and taking up
with new partners--free, that is, so long as
their former husbands chose not to make
trouble. All in all, the Eskimo practice
was a volatile scheme that bore little
resemblance to what we call marriage.
But it was not only their marriage and
sexual practices that were different. The
Eskimos also seemed to have less regard
for human life. Infanticide, for example,
was common. . . . Female babies, he
found, were especially liable to be
destroyed, and this was permitted simply
at the parents' discretion, with no social
stigma attached to it. Old people also,
when they became too feeble to contribute
to the family, were left out in the snow to
die. So there seemed to be, in this society,
remarkably little respect for life. (James Rachels,
The Elements of Moral Philosophy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1986)u
A more contemporary example:

For eighteen months Del Monte Corporation tried

to buy a 55,000-acre banana plantation in
Guatemala, but the government refused
to allow the sale. Del Monte officials
made inquiries and asked for meetings,
but nothing happened. Then they hired
a "business consultant" for $500,000.
The "consultant" was a wealthy busi-
nessman who frequently contributed
to political parties in Guatemala. The
businessman feared that disclosure
of this relationship with a large U.S.
company would diminish his influence
in Guatemala and perhaps even provoke
left-wing threats against his life.
So he demanded and received company
assurances of anonymity. To further pro-
tect him, Del Monte paid him outside
Guatemala. It charged his fee to general
and administrative expenses on the books
of several Panamanian shipping subsidia-
ries. His fee was entirely dependent on his
ability to get the Guatemalan government
to allow the sale of the plantation. Sudden-
ly the Guatemalan government reversed it-
self and permitted the sale. Now Del Mon-
te owns the profitable ban-ana plantation,
for which it paid $20.5 million, and the
"business consultant" is considerably
richer.
□ Cultural Relativism Defined.
Ethical relativism is the theory
which claims that, because diff-
erent societies have different ethi-
cal beliefs, there is no rational way
of determining whether an action
is morally right or wrong other
than by asking whether the
people of this or that society be-
lieve it is morally right or wrong.
Ethical relativism is the view that
there are no ethical standards that
are absolutely true and that apply
or should be applied to the com-
panies and people of all societies.
Instead, relativism holds, some-
thing is right for the people or
companies in one particular socie-
ty if it accords with their moral
standards, and wrong for them if it
violates their moral standards.
Manuel G. Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases
(New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), 22
■ What ethical relativism comes down to.
• Different cultures have different moral
codes/ beliefs. What is considered right
within one group may be utterly abhor-
rent to the members of another group.
THEREFORE: What is moral is relative
to a particular culture.
• It would be naive and mythical to think
that there is universal truth in ethics.
There are no standards of morality that
cut across cultures. Every standard is
culture-bound.
■ Challenge posed by ethical
relativism
The person who encounters societies
with many different moral standards
will be advised by the theory of ethical
relativism that in one’s moral reasoning
one should always follow the moral
standards prevalent in whatever society
one finds oneself. After all, since moral
standards differ and since there are no
other criteria of right and wrong, the
best one can do is to follow the old
adage “When in Rome, do as the
Romans do.
■ How do we respond
to this challenge?

At the very heart of relativism as a moral theory

are the following contentions -

W
a Diversity Thesis

D Relativity Thesis

R Toleration Thesis
Diversity Thesis: People do in fact disagree in
their moral beliefs. Cultures exhibit vastly dif-
ferent attitudes toward adultery, premarital sex,
property ownership, violence, etc. Even the same
moral tradition varies over time.
Objection: While there is variation in moral beliefs
between cultures, much of the apparent diversity in
moral beliefs can be traced to differences in
circumstances and in non-moral beliefs that are not
directly related to questions of morality. Thus,
appearances to the contrary, the difference may not
be a genuine moral difference. The difference may
be - difference in non-moral beliefs or difference
based on circumstances.
Relativity Thesis: Simply stated, the thesis says
that the rightness or wrongness of moral beliefs can
be determined only in relation to the culture or
moral tradition of the individuals who hold them.

Objection: But the fact that moral beliefs differ may

only show that some beliefs – or perhaps all of them –
are false. From the fact that different people have
different moral beliefs about some issue, it does not
follow logically that there is no objective truth about
the issue nor that all beliefs about that issue are equal-
ly acceptable. When two people or two groups have
different beliefs, at most all that follows is that at least
one of them is wrong.
Toleration Thesis: Relativists say
that we should adopt a tolerant at-
titude towards other individuals or
social groups that hold different mo-
ral beliefs. “Toleration” presumably
means refraining from using force to
impose the moral beliefs of one's
own culture on other cultures.

Objection: But if a principle of

toleration is not a part of the moral
beliefs of another culture, the members
of that culture have no moral obligation
to practice tolerance toward us, even if
we believe in toleration.
 Further Arguments
AgAinst relAtivism:
■ There must be certain moral
standards that the members of any
society must accept if that society is to
survive and if its members are to
interact with each other effectively.
Thus, all societies have norms against
injuring or killing other members of the
society, norms about using language
truthfully when communicating with
members of one’s society, and norms
against taking the personal goods of
other members of one’s society.
■ Performative Contradiction

Just in case the conclusion of

cultural relativism is true, i.e.,
that there is no universal truth in
morality, by implication, it also
claims that there can be no
universal truth at all. This
conclusion must be made self-
referentially. Therefore, there is
no reason why we should take
cultural relativism's conclusion
seriously, since it qualifies as an
assertion of a universal truth.
■ The most telling criticisms against the theory of
ethical relativism are those that point to the
incoherent consequences of the theory. If the
theory of ethical relativism were true, then it would
make no sense -
- to criticize the practices of other societies so
long as they conformed to their own standards;
- to criticize any of the moral standards or
practices accepted by our own society.
The theory of ethical relativism implies that
whatever the majority in our society believes about
morality is automatically correct.
■ Conclusion
So “when in Rome, do as the
Romans do?”
In other
One words
clearly - observe local
should
We can and
etiquette andother
should
suchdraw the
customs
in countries
line otherlocal
between than one’s own.
practices
To
andthis extent, when
customs that in
areRome one
morally
should indeed
indifferent do as
- such asthe Romans
which side
do.
of the road you drive on in a
country - and others that are
immoral or that we clearly
perceive to be immoral, such as
engaging in slavery.
No individual . . . can ethically
justify engaging in practices
the individual . . . believes are
immoral or unethical. A person
of integrity . . . not only has
principles but lives by them . . .
– Richard T. de George, Business Ethics, 4th edition, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.