Morality In Ruth Benedict's Patterns Of Culture

In ‘Patterns of Culture’, Ruth Benedict wrote, “Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits.” Cultural relativists have claimed the following; (1) different societies have different moral codes. (2) The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society. (3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. (4) The moral code of our own society has no special status. And (5), It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. ‘The Elements of Moral Philosophy’ states that some of the propositions listed are inconsistent with each other. For example, number two and five. If the moral code of a
society determines what is right within that society then how can we be tolerant of them (number 5) if one society’s norm is intolerance. The book gives the example of the beginning of World War II when the Nazi’s invaded Poland. Most can say that this was an intolerant action, but if it “conformed to Nazi ideals” a cultural relativists would say that we cannot criticize the Nazis for being “intolerant” as they were only following their moral code. But the catch is that the Nazis were not in their territory where being intolerant is a norm for the Polish. Therefore they became “bound by the norms of the Polish society”, norms that obviously excluded the intolerant actions that were taking place. The cultural relativism thesis can be contrasted with the cultural differences argument. This argument brings up the example of infanticide. The Eskimos at the time – the native people of Alaska in the early and mid-20th century- would kill their babies if they weren’t able to take care of them or provide for them. They were able to do this without being frowned upon or judged, even when they casually left their newborn baby outside in the cold to die. We look at this example and infanticide sounds cruel and would definitely be frowned upon in out society and a mother would be tried and punished for even attempting to do such a thing. The cultural differences argument would say that because we view infanticide as wrong and the Eskimos believed it was a normal thing to do, it is actually neither right nor wrong. It is just an opinion that varies and there is no objective truth. Addressing cultural relativism is important in studying ethics because as a human being living in today’s world and in ones own society, it is important to be aware of and not be naïve of the way that one lives.
To be naïve in the sense that the way one is living is the only correct way to live. In order to have the world functioning in the way that it is one must know that some values are shared by all cultures. The Elements of Moral Philosophy provides the example of truth telling. If in society, there was no value on telling the truth. Then, when speaking with someone, the person whom one is speaking to can be lying…this person can be lying about many things including work matters. Then there wouldn’t be any value and any reason to pay attention to what anyone says. “If I want to know what time it is, why bother asking anyone, if lying is a commonplace?” Communication would be almost impossible and society cannot exist without communication, therefore society would become impossible. A very important second example is murder If everyone was allowed to kill each other if they wanted, no one would feel safe, no one would trust anyone, and everyone would constantly feel on guard. Parents wouldn’t let kids out or have many friends if not
any. People would not be able to function and there wouldn’t even be a society. Or their would be small groups created which would be small societies which would have the law of not being allowed to kill. A chain reaction that would happen with many other things if all societies didn’t embrace some moral rules “because those rules are necessary for society to exist.”