COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

ETH101
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 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 founders 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.

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 providersThese assumptions/
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.

REFERENCE:

Bulaong, Oscar G.et al 2018 Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Bookstore Inc.
Nicanor Reyes
St. Recto Ave. Manila, Philippines

De Guzman, J.M. et al 2017 Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society. Mutya

Publishing House Inc. Potrero, Malabon
Manebog, J.DG. Ethics: A primer Appendix A
Plato on Justice http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic

Gallinero, Winston B. et al 2018 Ethics. Mutya Publishing House Inc. Pateros Malabon
City
Pasco, Marc Oliver D. et al 2018. Ethics. C&E Publishing Inc. Quezon City, Philippines

___________________________________________________________________