Summary Of Ruth Benedict's Theory Of Moral Relativism

In the first article, Herodotus argues that custom is king. Herodotus wanted to make a point that, even when given a better custom, the people will always prefer their own over anything offered or different. He tried to argue this by stating the fact their King, Cambyses, was insane because he was mocking and insulting the religious practices of other cultures. He proceeded to tell a story about Darius after he took the kingdom. The story involved two groups of people and their moral view on cannibalism. These two groups of people were his people, the Greeks, and an Indian tribe, the Callatians. The Greeks burned their dead; however, the Indians ate their dead. Both groups thought what they were doing was morally right because that is what they had become accustomed to.
In the second article Ruth Benedict argues the theory of Moral Relativism. Benedict describes her theory by arguing three main points: Modern civilization is not necessarily the pinnacle of human achievement, normality is culturally defined, and normality is often associated by the term “good”. To argue that modern civilization in not necessarily a human achievement, Benedict explains variants of different isolated societies that she has researched they have their own terms of what makes something “good” because they don’t have the influence of what we call a “modern” civilization. Benedict argues psychic ability, homosexuality, and murder as main points describing that normality is culturally defined. Benedict claims that what we now call “modern” is an adjustable view. In the early days of Catholicism psychic ability could identify and mark sainthood, but as culture and society progressed, we now see something that was normal as an