In A Defense Of Moral Relativism

In A Defense of Moral Relativism, Ruth Benedict argues that normal behavior varies from society to society; therefore, what’s morally right for one society can be morally wrong for another. To support this argument, Benedict mentions how certain cultures practice what’s “abnormal” to us without any difficulty. She goes further to give examples of traits that are abnormal to us such as, “sadism or delusions grandeur or of persecution” (Benedict, 1934, p.1) and concludes saying that “these abnormal function at ease and with honor, and apparently without danger or difficulty to the society” (Benedict, 1934, p.1). Benedict also uses examples that are deemed immoral to many societies such as homosexuality and murder to illustrate her argument. In ancient Greek times, homosexuality was widely accepted and was not seen as an abnormal or immoral aspect of this society. “Plato’s Republic is, of course, the most convincing statement of such a reading of homosexuality. It is presented as one of the major means to the good life, and it was generally so regarded in Greece at that time” (p.1). In this sense, we see how what is morally acceptable is defined by a particular society based on their practices and their ideologies.
Things are perceived in a different way by the Kwakiutl society; it is a culture that has been without contact with our standardized civilization and has remained uninfluenced by us. Benedict uses this society to support her argument on murder. “Among the Kwakiutl it did not matter whether a relative had died in bed of disease, or by the hand of an enemy, in either case was an affront to be wiped out by the death of another person” (p. 2). Eventually when the members of the tribe went out to look for the other tribe, they found seven men and two children asleep and killed them. “Then they felt good when they arrived at Sebaa in the evening”. If this event would have happened in our society, we would have considered them abnormal or immoral for feeling