ETHICS101 LECTURES/HANDOUTS

1ST SEMESTER 2020-2021

LECTURE HANDOUT 5- CULTURE AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM

OBJECTIVES: At the end of lecture handout 5, the student will be able to:

 recognize the contributory elements to their moral character.

 explain the relationship between individual acts and character.
 understand how moral character is developed in a person.
 understand cultural relativism in Ethics and analyze its impact in the development of their character.
 work and move along with other people with an understanding of the reasons for their action thereby
becoming a more tolerant member of the society.
 understand that each culture has its own uniqueness and although it does not agree with one’s own
culture, it is still right in the parent culture

INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

This module enlightens the learner about cultural relativism. It will help them understand why it is
important to be tolerant of other cultures, and how to accept other culture’s mores and traditions.
Cultural relativism is consistent in promoting tolerance in teaching that no culture is morally superior or
more progressive than others. If we do not believe that some cultures are better than others, then there
would be nothing for us to tolerate.

What is culture?
a. Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes,
meanings, hierarchies, religion, notion of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe,
and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations
through individual and group striving.

b. Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by
symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments
in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may, on the other hand, be considered as products of action, as
conditioning influences upon further action.

c. Culture is the sum total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered
to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.

d. Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior, that is the totality of a person’s learned,
accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social
learning.

e. Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group’s skills, knowledge,
attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately
perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
 Defined broadly therefore, culture includes all the things individuals learn while growing up among
particular group: attitudes, standards of morality, rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality,
language, notions about the proper way to live, beliefs about how male and females should
interact, ideas about how the world works and so forth. We call this culture knowledge.

Elements of Culture
1.Symbols
Symbols can be anything that a group of people find meaningful. For example, in religious
groups, the cross is a symbol for Christianity while the crescent is for Islam.
2.Language
Language is a complex symbol system that enabled human beings to communicate either
verbally or through writing. Ilocano, Bisaya, Tagalog, and several other native languages were already
spoken in pre-colonial Philippines. Their ancient script or writing called baybayin had characters, and
each character represented a complete syllable.
3.Beliefs
Beliefs are assumptions or convictions held to be true by an individual or a group of people.
These assumptions/ convictions could be about events, people, or things. For example, ancient
civilizations attributed events to spirits and gods. This is what we now call “superstitious beliefs.”
However, when people started to think critically and scientific research flourished, events are now
explained differently. This also shows that beliefs change through time.
4.Values
Values are culturally acceptable standards of behavior. It is what a person considers important in
life. For example, in pre-colonial Philippines there were evidences that women were equally valued and
held central roles in society just as did the men. This was in stark contrast to the Spanish colonizers
however, who valued women mainly as domestic caretakers.
5.Norm
Is an informal guideline by a particular group of people or social unit about what is considered
normal or correct/ incorrect social behavior. For instance, the Filipino norm in relating to other people is
to get along well with others, even with complete strangers. The Filipino trait is called pakikisama.

How does culture define Moral Behavior?

One of the revered founder of Western philosophy- Plato in his famous philosophical work, The
Republic cited three critical elements that jointly influence the human person’s moral development.
These elements are native traits (or what we might call genetic characteristics); early childhood
experience; and one’s cultural surroundings (Pekarsky, 1998).
Plato implied that if a person’s cultural surroundings reward conformity to agreeable norms it
would lead the person to behave much better and quell undesirable conduct. He also expressed that the
power of culture over an individual is more potent in children because they do not have pre-existing
values. The child’s cultural surroundings create these values and dispositions. Thus, Plato insisted that a
child’s cultural surroundings should “express the image of a noble character”; that role models should
display the conduct of a proper human being because the behavior of the adults serves as the child’s
moral foundation he or she grows and develops (Cornford, 1966; Pekarsky,1998).

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

It describes the simple fact that there are different cultures and each has different ways of
behaving, thinking and feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation. There is an
enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim. It is well known by just about every human on the
planet that people do things differently around the globe. People dress differently, eat differently, speak
different languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have many different
customs.
In some countries, children are allowed to marry but in most countries this is unacceptable.
Divorce in not allowed in the Philippines, but Filipino Muslim men and women can legally divorce their
respective wife or husband. Why are these so many differences in societies on what is acceptable or
not? Is it true that different cultures have radically different moral codes? Are there any values that all
societies commonly have? This lesson will discuss the advantages of cultural relativism and the dangers
of holding this viewpoint.

Why can’t all cultural practices be always correct?

The world is wide and huge. Part of what makes the world interesting is that it is home to different
groups of people who have developed their own unique outlook on how to survive or thrive. These
differences led people to view life differently and live completely different lifestyles. German- American
anthropologist Franz Boaz first articulated in 1887,”…civilization is not something absolute, but…is
relative and…our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilizations goes.” However, the first
to use the term “cultural relativism” was philosopher and social theorist Alain Locke in 1924. Cultural
relativism explains why one behavior or practice is completely acceptable by a particular group of
people, while taboo in another. It refers to the idea that values, knowledge, and behavior of people must
be understood within its own cultural context, and not by the standards of other cultures. Hence, all
moral and ethical standards (or the judgment of what is right or wrong) is valid and there is not “one”
standard that is “better” among all others.
Philosopher and university professor Dr. James Rachels (1914-2003), in his book The Elements
of Moral Philosophy, laid out five claims of cultural relativists as to why right or wrong is only a matter of
cultural standards. These claims are:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong. There is no objective standard
considered better than others.
3. There are no universal moral truths.
4. The moral code of a particular society has no special status. It is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for one culture to judge another culture. There should be tolerance among
cultures.

The Advantages and Dangers of Cultural Relativism

 Rachel identified two positive lessons we can learn from cultural relativism
1. It warns us from assuming that our preferences are absolute rational standard.
2. It teaches us to keep open mind and to be more amenable in discovering the truth.

Many of our practices are relevant only to our particular community. This implies
our moral views are a reflection of our society’s prejudices. Cultural relativism makes us understand that
what we think as truth may actually be just the result of cultural conditioning.

On the other hand, the dangers of cultural relativism are:

1. We cannot call our societal practices that promote harm
If cultural relativism is true, then we should not condemn what Hitler and
the Nazis did against the Jews, Apartheid in South Africa, or any form of
maltreatment, damage, injury, or destruction that one community inflicts upon anyone or anything.

2. We cannot justifiably criticize our own culture’s harmful practices.

This implies that to decide whether your action is right or wrong all you
you need to do is check whether your action is in accordance with the standards
of YOUR society. If your actions are in line with your culture, then you have done
nothing wrong-even though your actions were harmful. After all, if it is true that
you cannot criticize other cultures, then all the more you cannot criticize other
cultures, then all the more can you not criticize your own culture since people in
your group accept it as a way of life. For example, if cultural relativism is to be
followed then 2016 Metro Manila Film Fest officials did not have the right to take
back the Fernando Poe Jr. Memorial Award granted to the film ‘Oro” where a dog
was slaughtered in the movie because dogs as “pulutan” is part of an issue.

3. The idea of social progress becomes doubtful

Progress means replacing something old with something better. However,
cultural relativism is to be followed, by what standards do we say that a society
has become better? The idea of social reform is now eradicated because we are
prohibited from judging one society as better over others. For example, Spanish
colonial era was in effect a different society than modern Philippines. Hence, we
cannot say that Filipinos have made social progress from being slaves
to conquistadores into a freedom- loving society because slavery during the
Spanish colonial era was the norm; and it was a different time compared to
Modern Philippines.

Rachel’s Evaluation of Cultural Relativism

The late Philosophy professor James Rachel (1941-2003) made a compelling assessment of
cultural relativism. Because the theory attains widespread prominence, it would help a lot to consider
Rachel’s comprehensive evaluation of this ethical system.

The cultural differences argument

Rachel logically analyzed the cultural relativism’s line of thinking (1999,pp.22-25). He explains
that the cultural relativist’s approach is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural
outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like these:
  The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians (an Indian tribe)
believed it was right to eat the dead. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
 The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe infanticide is immoral.
Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. Both are specific
cases of a more general argument, which states:

Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinions, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

Rachel calls this the cultural differences argument. Seemingly persuasive, it is nonetheless
unsound because its conclusion does not follow from its premise. That is, even if the premise is true, the
conclusion might still be false. Notice that the premise concerns what people believe but the conclusion
assumes what really is the case.

Concerning the case of the Greeks and Callatians, one group believed it was wrong to eat the
dead whereas the other considered it right. But does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed,
that there is no objective truth in the matter? It does not- very mistaken.

Cultural relativism goes wrong in drawing a sweeping conclusion about an issue from the mere
fact that the people disagree about it. The theory thus fails because it derives a substantive conclusion
about morality from the observation that people disagree about ethical issues.

The Disagreements Among Cultures

Cultural Relativism capitalizes on the observation that cultures differ dramatically in their views of
right and wrong. But how much do they differ?

Rachels takes the case of a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. Such a
society would appear to have values very different from the majority of the people in the world. But upon
learning that its people believe that after death human soul dwells in the bodies of animals-so that a cow
may be someone’s grandmother-it becomes clear that their values are not essentially different from
ours. The difference lies in belief systems, not in values. As Rachel puts it, “we agree that we shouldn’t
eat Grandma, we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be ) Grandma”.

There are many factors, Rachels further explains, which work together to produce the customs of
a society. Aside from society’s values, there religious beliefs, factual beliefs, the physical circumstances
in which people must live, and others. Since the difference in customs may be because of some other
aspects of social life, then it’s wrong to conclude that there is a disagreement about values and morality
just because customs differ. Therefore, there may be less ethical disagreements than there appears to
be.

The Case of Eskimos and Callatians

In Sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing perfectly normal infants,
especially girls. This makes them appear to possess significantly different values from ours.
 As Rachels elucidates the matter nonetheless it is not that Eskimos have less affection for their
children or less respect for human life. An Eskimo family will always protect its babies if conditions
permit. But they live in a harsh environment where food is in in short supply that “life is hard, and the
margin of safety small.

As in many primitive societies, Eskimo mothers nurse their first infants over a long period of time,
breastfeeding them for four years or longer. Unable to farm, Eskimos must move about in search of food
and infants must be carried. A mother can carry only one baby in her parka as she travels and goes
about her outdoor work. So even in the best times, there are limits to the number of infants that a mother
can sustain.

Infant girls are more readily disposed of because of the following reasons given by
Rachels:

 The males are the primary food providers-they are the hunters-and it is obviously important to
maintain a sufficient number of food providers.
 The hunters suffer a high casualty rate- the adult men who die prematurely far outnumber the
women who die early. Thus, if male and female infants survive in equal numbers, the female adult
population would greatly outnumber the male adult population.

In Eskimo’s very special case, infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic

measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family survival.

Take note too, that killing the baby is not the first option considered. As Rachels reports, adoption
is common and killing is only the last resort. There is a need to emphasize this in order to show that the
raw data of the anthropologists can be misleading: it can make the differences in values between
cultures appear greater than they are. The Eskimos’ values are not all that different from our values.

Essentially the same case can be said of the funerary practice of the Callatians. Indeed, “eating
our fathers” is an appalling idea to many of us. But as Rachels explains, performing such practice could
be understood as a sign of respect. “It could be taken as a symbolic act that says: we wish this person’s
spirit to dwell within us. As respecting the dead is generally shared by many cultures, what Callatians
therefore do to their dead loved ones does not necessarily indicate a difference in values.

RESEARCH TOPIC

Title: Cultural Differences Argument and the Disagreements among Cultures

1. Explain in length these two topics.

2. Give examples that will help in understanding the differences and disagreements.

OUTPUT FOR SUBMISSION

Explain what your reactions, thoughts, and feelings are regarding the case of the Eskimos and the
Calatians.

Submission Date______________________